[Discussion] Branding Rule Changes

[Unibot III]

"Regions do not exist IC"
Mentioning them in resolutions currently counts as Meta-gaming, it is true, and explaining them without breaching that rule might be tricky. However if anybody can come up with a viable definition that doesn't break the fourth wall then -- as the existence of regions and their delegates has always been widely acknowledged in GA roleplay anyway -- I would be open to changing that rule.

Region. A distinct area that can encompass more than one nation-state.

[Excidium Planetis]

"Regions do not exist IC"
Mentioning them in resolutions currently counts as Meta-gaming, it is true, and explaining them without breaching that rule might be tricky. However if anybody can come up with a viable definition that doesn't break the fourth wall then -- as the existence of regions and their delegates has always been widely acknowledged in GA roleplay anyway -- I would be open to changing that rule.

Region. A distinct area that can encompass more than one nation-state.

Yes. In fact, the idea of regions as political groups can also be expressed in IC terms. "Regional voting blocs": a group of WA member nations who have, for reasons of close proximity, delegated their collective voting power to a single representative nation.

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Regions do not exist IC"
Mentioning them in resolutions currently counts as Meta-gaming, it is true, and explaining them without breaching that rule might be tricky. However if anybody can come up with a viable definition that doesn't break the fourth wall then -- as the existence of regions and their delegates has always been widely acknowledged in GA roleplay anyway -- I would be open to changing that rule.

"offsite groups do not exist IC"
Groups such as ACCEL, the National Sovereignty Organisation, and whatever the 'defence/security' proposal-drafting think-tank that existed back in NSUN times was called (I was a member, but have forgotten the name...), have also been mentioned in [NS-UN] RP. If we do change the rules on branding then, even if regions (and therefore regional working groups) are still excluded, I would be willing to consider allowing groups like those to be listed as co-authors or even to consider allowing spokes-puppets for those groups to be used as authors. One condition that I'd like to see in that case, though, would be openness of their drafting threads to public view [even if non-members were barred from commenting there).

I agree with Unibot and EP here. All of these things can be expressed in an in-character fashion. Regions have already been done. The in-character version of regions is simply what regions are thought of in-character already — geographic regions. Similarly, off-site groups can simply be thought of as national ambassadors from different regions cooperating and working together to achieve some collective goal, like how the United States (region: America) cooperates with Israel (region: Middle East) or how the United Kingdom (region: Europe) cooperates with Tuvalu (region: The Pacific).

[Wallenburg]

Region. A distinct area that can encompass more than one nation-state.

Yes. In fact, the idea of regions as political groups can also be expressed in IC terms. "Regional voting blocs": a group of WA member nations who have, for reasons of close proximity, delegated their collective voting power to a single representative nation.

Or otherwise. If a region isn't meant to be physically in the same place, I look at it as a sort of international treaty organization, an alliance of nations that is not necessarily physically centralized but still supports each other politically.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Regarding Metagaming: assigning authorship to a region or group should be done through the "author" field, not the body text. It shouldn't break the fourth wall any more than somebody with a wall-breaking nation pre-title does. My WA's pre-title during TSP's election referenced the race, for example.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Regarding Metagaming: assigning authorship to a region or group should be done through the "author" field, not the body text. It shouldn't break the fourth wall any more than somebody with a wall-breaking nation pre-title does. My WA's pre-title during TSP's election referenced the race, for example.

Yet, pretitles don't show up in GA resolutions.

[Bananaistan]

The World Assembly Legislative League is not something I have heard of before so I have no idea what it does or doesn't do. However, I am familiar with your "antispam" pact. You can dress it up all you like or attempt to explain the reasons behind it, there is no doubt that it was treated with utter contempt by almost all GA regulars when they heard of it as they can see through it for exactly what it is: a power grab by a handful of superdelegates who already wield far too much influence and power over the GA.

It consistently seems that people don't actually read regional legislation, especially the parts that go against their strange conception of how regions are some kind of inscrutable monolith devoted to the destruction of all freedom.

Yeah, nobody thinks that. A lot don't like the excessive influence of delegates over the WA and I don't want to see this increased by explicitly allowing for regional authorship.

[Araraukar]

A lot don't like the excessive influence of delegates over the WA and I don't want to see this increased by explicitly allowing for regional authorship.

^This.

[Unibot III]

A lot don't like the excessive influence of delegates over the WA and I don't want to see this increased by explicitly allowing for regional authorship.

^This.

This wouldn't increase the influence of delegates, but it would increase the participation by communities in the WA outside of the gameplay forum. I think the opposition to working groups recognition is explictly about trying to deter participation - in which case, GenSec have to ask the question why the rules should be deterring participation? Players are allowed to have their prejudices but they shouldn't be allowed to ingrain them in the ruleset.

[Imperium Anglorum]

This wouldn't increase the influence of delegates, but it would increase the participation by communities in the WA outside of the gameplay forum.

That participation would also decrease the power of delegates writ large, since there would be larger effective electorate which decides the delegate's voting actions in both Assemblies. It would also increase the ties between those regional communities and the current GA community, by bringing those communities closer together, meaning that there is more interaction, and therefore, a closer alignment of interests — rather than the more disparate alignment of such interests prevailing today.

[Unibot III]

This wouldn't increase the influence of delegates, but it would increase the participation by communities in the WA outside of the gameplay forum.

That participation would also decrease the power of delegates writ large, since there would be larger effective electorate which decides the delegate's voting actions in both Assemblies. It would also increase the ties between those regional communities and the current GA community, by bringing those communities closer together, meaning that there is more interaction, and therefore, a closer alignment of interests — rather than the more disparate alignment of such interests prevailing today.

Exactly my thought on both counts.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Question from a "reform the delegate system" perspective: is it possible that increasing the number of regional-working-group-sponsored proposals will increase the proportion of GA-attentive voters who want to alter or abolish the delegate stomp system? As (I dunno) a Rejected Realms drafted proposal gets insta-stomped by one or more of the Pacifics (is this the likeliest opponent for TRR on simplistic "regional enemies" terms?), the Rejects who worked on it are more likely to become 'radicalized' and support delegate vote reforms.

If yes, this answers Araraukar's & Bananaistan's concern, and I'm on board.

[Araraukar]

That participation would also decrease the power of delegates writ large, since there would be larger effective electorate which decides the delegate's voting actions in both Assemblies.

...how do you figure that? If more people joined the WA, the delegates would get more endorsements, since it's often a requirement to be allowed to reside in the region in question, thus increasing delegate powers.

It would also increase the ties between those regional communities and the current GA community, by bringing those communities closer together, meaning that there is more interaction

Completely ignoring the fact that many people are involved with the GA rather than SC in an effort to not be involved with the Gameplay part of NS?

and therefore, a closer alignment of interests — rather than the more disparate alignment of such interests prevailing today.

Again, why would that automatically be a good thing?

[Tinfect]

Yes. In fact, the idea of regions as political groups can also be expressed in IC terms. "Regional voting blocs": a group of WA member nations who have, for reasons of close proximity, delegated their collective voting power to a single representative nation.

Or otherwise. If a region isn't meant to be physically in the same place, I look at it as a sort of international treaty organization, an alliance of nations that is not necessarily physically centralized but still supports each other politically.

And then there's regions like mine, which serves only as a place to organize between myself and a few friends, where some of them, including the Region itself, don't even exist ICly.

A lot don't like the excessive influence of delegates over the WA and I don't want to see this increased by explicitly allowing for regional authorship.

^This.

Here as well. I see no reason to let proposals by regional delegates/organizations get carried on Name Recognition and Regional Politics rather than quality.

It would also increase the ties between those regional communities and the current GA community, by bringing those communities closer together, meaning that there is more interaction, and therefore, a closer alignment of interests — rather than the more disparate alignment of such interests prevailing today.

I really don't want Regional Politics and Gameplay to be anywhere near the GA. I don't even vote in, or so much as browse the Security Council. We don't need the GA to be puppeted by the R&D metagame any more than it is.

[Excidium Planetis]

And then there's regions like mine, which serves only as a place to organize between myself and a few friends, where some of them, including the Region itself, don't even exist ICly.

Which can represent a political bloc. Aeiouia and Tinfect are both IC WA members who could potentially cooperate on WA votes.

[Tinfect]

And then there's regions like mine, which serves only as a place to organize between myself and a few friends, where some of them, including the Region itself, don't even exist ICly.

Which can represent a political bloc. Aeiouia and Tinfect are both IC WA members who could potentially cooperate on WA votes.

Except, you know, Aeiouia and the Imperium hate eachother, and have wildly different political agendas. We're only allied ICly because the Archai want to keep an eye on us in case we go about genociding with their technology again, and we only keep them around because it gives us opportunities to capture their tech. Why do you think the Imperium let you attack them way back when?

[Aclion]

No, drafting is already being done offsite because not getting credited is still better then dealing with you. If you want to help the GA forum stop being an ass and start collaborating.

Ooh, you're spicy. I agree, though. If the forum culture improves, hopefully we'll have a better yield rate. Collaboration, however, can happen on this forum. Exporting the drafting to other forums ruins the game.

Hmm I'd like to clarify that "you" in this case meant the GA regulars as a whole, not Ararauker specifically, who's among the best ones imo.

Anyway off-forum and in-forum drafting is not exclusive. Exporting the drafting is how we get many of the quality drafts that come up on the forum. Pretty much all the coauthored resolutions are drafted in some off-forum way, be it a google doc, an offsite forum or simply tells. It's the only way to get things done without the distractions of legal shenanigans, hyperbolic opposition and RPwank.

Additionally it should be noted that the branding rule does not force in-forum drafting, it only prevents larger collaborations from crediting all their coauthors, whether in the forum or not.

[Wallenburg]

And then there's regions like mine, which serves only as a place to organize between myself and a few friends, where some of them, including the Region itself, don't even exist ICly.

Which can represent a political bloc. Aeiouia and Tinfect are both IC WA members who could potentially cooperate on WA votes.

If the region doesn't exist ICly, then it can't really act as an IC political bloc.

[Araraukar]

Misunderstanding. And also sincere apology to IA.

[Kitzerland]

IA pre-emptively trying to sneak around the Branding Rule, I see.

By giving thread ownership of the regional advertisement thread to his regional advertisement puppet? Shocking!

[Araraukar]

*snip*

Misunderstanding. Snark not appreciated.

If the region doesn't exist ICly, then it can't really act as an IC political bloc.

^This. Requiring acknowledgement of regions in IC is no different from requiring acknowledgement of anything else that some people call RPwank. Most roleplayers ignore the gameside stats of their nations, because the game intentionally makes your choices more extreme, and because the population number is really more of a signal of how long you've played.

[Excidium Planetis]

Except, you know, Aeiouia and the Imperium hate eachother, and have wildly different political agendas. We're only allied ICly because the Archai want to keep an eye on us in case we go about genociding with their technology again, and we only keep them around because it gives us opportunities to capture their tech. Why do you think the Imperium let you attack them way back when?

That doesn't necessarily mean that you don't cooperate on voting in the WA. Excidium Planetis and Tinfect don't like each other either, but have cooperated on WA matters before. If you include OOC cooperation, there has been significant cooperation between our nations despite ideological issues and not even being in the same region.

If the region doesn't exist ICly, then it can't really act as an IC political bloc.

Except there are only 3 WA members in Tinfect's region, and 1 of them is not even ICly a WA member. The remaining two are both IC WA members and even IC neighbors and allies. They can represent a political bloc, albeit a small one intent on betraying the other half in the future.

[Wallenburg]

Except, you know, Aeiouia and the Imperium hate eachother, and have wildly different political agendas. We're only allied ICly because the Archai want to keep an eye on us in case we go about genociding with their technology again, and we only keep them around because it gives us opportunities to capture their tech. Why do you think the Imperium let you attack them way back when?

That doesn't necessarily mean that you don't cooperate on voting in the WA. Excidium Planetis and Tinfect don't like each other either, but have cooperated on WA matters before. If you include OOC cooperation, there has been significant cooperation between our nations despite ideological issues and not even being in the same region.

If the region doesn't exist ICly, then it can't really act as an IC political bloc.

Except there are only 3 WA members in Tinfect's region, and 1 of them is not even ICly a WA member. The remaining two are both IC WA members and even IC neighbors and allies. They can represent a political bloc, albeit a small one intent on betraying the other half in the future.

The nations indeed can. However, the region cannot. A region is more than the sum of its parts.

[Excidium Planetis]

The nations indeed can. However, the region cannot. A region is more than the sum of its parts.

If the nations within a region can be a political bloc, why can the region not represent that bloc?

[Unibot III]

Question from a "reform the delegate system" perspective: is it possible that increasing the number of regional-working-group-sponsored proposals will increase the proportion of GA-attentive voters who want to alter or abolish the delegate stomp system? As (I dunno) a Rejected Realms drafted proposal gets insta-stomped by one or more of the Pacifics (is this the likeliest opponent for TRR on simplistic "regional enemies" terms?), the Rejects who worked on it are more likely to become 'radicalized' and support delegate vote reforms.

If yes, this answers Araraukar's & Bananaistan's concern, and I'm on board.

Yes, with the exception of TNP. It'll threaten the status quo because a rejection of a regional-working-group proposal would be the equivalent of a diplomatic incident. TNP will never support a reform of the delegate system though; TRR is the likeliest to (given Rejects have the smaller vote presence but are often on the popular vote's side.)

I would expect the first consequence of a higher prevalence of working groups is an organization like WALL (tying TNP, Balder, and Europeia together) would fall, because Balder and Euro would be trying to push TNP to act against TRR/Lazarus against TNP's own interests. That's good news for International Federalists, not so good for NatSovers who have cosied up to Euro/Osiris.