[Discussion] Branding Rule Changes

[Wallenburg]

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?

Because it does not exist in-character. Roleplaying a regional political bloc requires an ability to recognize the region from an IC perspective.

[Tzorsland]

Because it does not exist in-character. Roleplaying a regional political bloc requires an ability to recognize the region from an IC perspective.

I could never understand why you can't recognize a region from an IC perspective. "A region is a voluntary confederation of NationStates, both World Assembly Members and Non Members, banded together for some common reason." There; it is so defined.

Of course you can't use it for WA law since by definition GA resolutions apply to all member nations and regions consist of both member and non member NationStates, but you can't say you can't define a region IC.

You can't explain why a NationState can only belong to one region, and that's fine. It's like trying to explain why out of a group of nations (the ones you control) only one can be in the WA at any given time. It's a "need to know" basis and IC doesn't need to know.

[Wallenburg]

Because it does not exist in-character. Roleplaying a regional political bloc requires an ability to recognize the region from an IC perspective.

I could never understand why you can't recognize a region from an IC perspective. "A region is a voluntary confederation of NationStates, both World Assembly Members and Non Members, banded together for some common reason." There; it is so defined.

Of course you can't use it for WA law since by definition GA resolutions apply to all member nations and regions consist of both member and non member NationStates, but you can't say you can't define a region IC.

You can't explain why a NationState can only belong to one region, and that's fine. It's like trying to explain why out of a group of nations (the ones you control) only one can be in the WA at any given time. It's a "need to know" basis and IC doesn't need to know.

I'm not saying regions cannot be recognized from an IC perspective. If you look up the quote chain, you'll realize that I am currently discussing those regions that don't exist IC, and am operating under the assumption that non-IC regions are non-IC. If you want to make an IC region, I'm all for that. IC regions simply aren't the focus of this discussion.

Speaking of the focus of this discussion, we may want to start steering the thread back to branding rules. I know that regional branding is an on-topic discussion, but we're really venturing off into the nature of regions rather than their relationship with the GA and its ruleset.

[Tzorsland]

I'm not saying regions cannot be recognized from an IC perspective. If you look up the quote chain, you'll realize that I am currently discussing those regions that don't exist IC, and am operating under the assumption that non-IC regions are non-IC. If you want to make an IC region, I'm all for that. IC regions simply aren't the focus of this discussion.

Then work with me here. If you can make an IC view of a Region, then you can make an IC view of a Region being listed as a co-author. Even though regions as defined have non member NationStates, there is no restriction on the authorship of a resolution that non member nations can't be co-authors. If Tzorsland works with Happy Examples on a resolution and it's my puppet of Frustrated Franciscans that is currently in the WA, Happy Examples should be able to use Tzorsland as a co-author and not be forced to use Frustrated Franciscans (or if as is the case now I have no puppets in the WA, I should still be listed as the co-author). Once you have a hand waving IC reason then you can't say that regional co-authorship should be banned because of IC reasons.

This has NOTHING to do with whether or not the region is an IC region or not. Five will get you ten that regions that are not IC don't want to be listed as co-authors anyway, so that point might be somewhat moot.

[Wallenburg]

I'm not saying regions cannot be recognized from an IC perspective. If you look up the quote chain, you'll realize that I am currently discussing those regions that don't exist IC, and am operating under the assumption that non-IC regions are non-IC. If you want to make an IC region, I'm all for that. IC regions simply aren't the focus of this discussion.

Then work with me here. If you can make an IC view of a Region, then you can make an IC view of a Region being listed as a co-author. Even though regions as defined have non member NationStates, there is no restriction on the authorship of a resolution that non member nations can't be co-authors. If Tzorsland works with Happy Examples on a resolution and it's my puppet of Frustrated Franciscans that is currently in the WA, Happy Examples should be able to use Tzorsland as a co-author and not be forced to use Frustrated Franciscans (or if as is the case now I have no puppets in the WA, I should still be listed as the co-author). Once you have a hand waving IC reason then you can't say that regional co-authorship should be banned because of IC reasons.

This has NOTHING to do with whether or not the region is an IC region or not. Five will get you ten that regions that are not IC don't want to be listed as co-authors anyway, so that point might be somewhat moot.

That's an interesting take on it, arguing that IC regional branding should be legal, but OOC regions should not have the same option. I have two issues with that. First, the GA rules ought to be consistent, and giving preferential treatment to one kind of region over another would cause all kinds of issues on that front. Second, distinguishing truly IC regions from OOC regions simply looking to get past the branding rules would be rather difficult, especially as an OOC region could simply argue that they have recently become an IC region. Do you have a solution for this?

[Tzorsland]

That's an interesting take on it, arguing that IC regional branding should be legal, but OOC regions should not have the same option.

No, I'm saying that if you can define a region in IC terms then you can use that definition to add that region (IC region or not, in fact it doesn't even have to be a "real" region) when adding co-authors to the proposal. It has nothing to do with the specific region but how you describe the region because GA resolutions are WRITTEN IC.

[Excidium Planetis]

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

Because it does not exist in-character. Roleplaying a regional political bloc requires an ability to recognize the region from an IC perspective.

How does it not exist in Character? The nations exist in character, they are in close proximity ICly and form a political bloc. Why should the region not be considered IC?

[Wallenburg]

Because it does not exist in-character. Roleplaying a regional political bloc requires an ability to recognize the region from an IC perspective.

How does it not exist in Character? The nations exist in character, they are in close proximity ICly and form a political bloc. Why should the region not be considered IC?

Because our discussion is operating under the very assumption that the region does not exist IC.

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.

"If A, then B" requires an assumption that A is true. Otherwise, the "then B" part is irrelevant, because the conditions have not been met.

[Excidium Planetis]

How does it not exist in Character? The nations exist in character, they are in close proximity ICly and form a political bloc. Why should the region not be considered IC?

Because our discussion is operating under the very assumption that the region does not exist IC.

What does that mean? Does the Pacific exist ICly? Does the Rejected Realms? Is there literally a region named NationStates in the IC world of the GA? Does any region exist ICly, considering they are all just groups of players in an online game?

"If A, then B" requires an assumption that A is true. Otherwise, the "then B" part is irrelevant, because the conditions have not been met.

If A then B
B is true

How does that assume whether A is true or false?

[Wallenburg]

Because our discussion is operating under the very assumption that the region does not exist IC.

What does that mean? Does the Pacific exist ICly? Does the Rejected Realms? Is there literally a region named NationStates in the IC world of the GA?

What it means is that Weyard does not exist IC.

Does any region exist ICly, considering they are all just groups of players in an online game?

I'm rather certain there are at least some regions that exit IC to the nations within them.

"If A, then B" requires an assumption that A is true. Otherwise, the "then B" part is irrelevant, because the conditions have not been met.

If A then B
B is true

How does that assume whether A is true or false?

It doesn't. However, you are arguing that B is false.

[Excidium Planetis]

What it means is that Weyard does not exist IC.

ICly, Weyard exists. It is a planet in Aeiouia.

I'm rather certain there are at least some regions that exit IC to the nations within them.

What you are saying, though, is that ICly, almost no regions exist. "The Pacific" doesn't exist because ICly there is no place called the Pacific where thousands of nations, some interstellar star states, exist.

It doesn't. However, you are arguing that B is false.

No, I am not. B Is "they act as a political bloc", which I have said is true. Multiple times.

[Wallenburg]

What it means is that Weyard does not exist IC.

ICly, Weyard exists. It is a planet in Aeiouia.

You know exactly what I mean. Don't pretend otherwise.

I'm rather certain there are at least some regions that exit IC to the nations within them.

What you are saying, though, is that ICly, almost no regions exist. "The Pacific" doesn't exist because ICly there is no place called the Pacific where thousands of nations, some interstellar star states, exist.

Correct.

It doesn't. However, you are arguing that B is false.

No, I am not. B Is "they act as a political bloc", which I have said is true. Multiple times.

Not as an IC political bloc, though.

[Excidium Planetis]

You know exactly what I mean. Don't pretend otherwise.

If you mean that Weyard is not a region that all WA members of the OOC region dwell in, yes. You would be hard pressed, however, to find many regions where all WA members of the region did indeed dwell in an IC region sharing the same name as the OOC region.

But here, does this change things: Excidium Planetis names the entire region of space containing the Imperium of Tinfect, Aeiouia, and the interuniversal gateways leading to the Pkunk Alliance "Weyard" for simplicity. It is now an IC region that the WA members of the OOC region Weyard reside in. Good enough for you?

No, I am not. B Is "they act as a political bloc", which I have said is true. Multiple times.

Not as an IC political bloc, though.

Yes, as an IC political bloc. I already said this. Aeiouia and Tinfect are IC WA members who have cooperated together on IC WA matters. I can bring up actual IC posts on this forum where they did so. They are also IC allies, although that may not mean much, as both don't like the other very much.

[Wallenburg]

You know exactly what I mean. Don't pretend otherwise.

If you mean that Weyard is not a region that all WA members of the OOC region dwell in, yes. You would be hard pressed, however, to find many regions where all WA members of the region did indeed dwell in an IC region sharing the same name as the OOC region.

All right? I'd be hard pressed to find a GA resolution that someone hasn't one time or another called illegal in its drafting thread or during vote. I'm quite certain such a resolution does, however, exist.

But here, does this change things: Excidium Planetis names the entire region of space containing the Imperium of Tinfect, Aeiouia, and the interuniversal gateways leading to the Pkunk Alliance "Weyard" for simplicity. It is now an IC region that the WA members of the OOC region Weyard reside in. Good enough for you?

In a way. You can refer to them IC as a region. Tinfect doesn't have to recognize that IC though. Tinfect can insist that it is not a region. And to be honest, I see no reason why your nation would use that name for that region of space when it refers to a single planet in a single nation in that region. It doesn't even open up opportunities to brand a proposal with a regional stamp.

Not as an IC political bloc, though.

Yes, as an IC political bloc. I already said this. Aeiouia and Tinfect are IC WA members who have cooperated together on IC WA matters. I can bring up actual IC posts on this forum where they did so. They are also IC allies, although that may not mean much, as both don't like the other very much.

The region cannot act as an IC political bloc if it does not exist IC. You may as well say that Hogwarts serves as a real academy for wizards and witches.

[Tinfect]

But here, does this change things: Excidium Planetis names the entire region of space containing the Imperium of Tinfect, Aeiouia, and the interuniversal gateways leading to the Pkunk Alliance "Weyard" for simplicity. It is now an IC region that the WA members of the OOC region Weyard reside in. Good enough for you?

I will point out that there's little practical reason to do this; Aeiouia's holdings near the Imperium are quite limited if I remember correctly, the Brotherhood gateways are technically in said small area, though I don't remember if the immediate area was ceded to them, and the Interior Territories alone are staggeringly large, and several Civilizations can, and did, fit into the modern Exterior Territories quite comfortably.

And also that this is a really hamfisted attempt to justify what is essentially Metagaming via external RP.

Yes, as an IC political bloc. I already said this. Aeiouia and Tinfect are IC WA members who have cooperated together on IC WA matters. I can bring up actual IC posts on this forum where they did so. They are also IC allies, although that may not mean much, as both don't like the other very much.

What amounts to political alliances of convenience and the very occasional shared goal do not a political bloc make. There is no agreement, official or otherwise, regarding political cooperation between the Imperium and the Collective. For reasons that should be immediately obvious given the nature of the Imperium and the general policy of non-aggression held by the Collective, the alliance is solely one of military import, a partially-observed mutual defense pact that does not apply in the case of aggressive action by either party.

[Separatist Peoples]

Not gonna lie, this is not a persuasive debate for changing the rule.

[Unibot III]

Not gonna lie, this is not a persuasive debate for changing the rule.

I don't get why the conversation is about whether the word 'region' can be referred to in resolutions. We don't need to discuss regions in GA resolutions. We should just keep the discussion to whether or not working groups can get recognition for co-authorship or authorship.

Currently, the GA bans people from even using nations to submit resolutions under the name of a working group.

Perhaps as a compromise (if we REALLY need to compromise on what should be an open shut case), the GA could allow author nations to have the name of a working group or region in them. But maintain that co-authors should be limited to specific nations.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Would it be branding if I used the nation Europe to submit a proposal?

[Excidium Planetis]

Would it be branding if I used the nation Europe to submit a proposal?

It would be a real life violation.

[Araraukar]

How does it not exist in Character? The nations exist in character, they are in close proximity ICly and form a political bloc. Why should the region not be considered IC?

Nations' RP realities clash. You'd have to accept that a region can span several universes and still be a "region", which just doesn't make any sense. You could have a political coalition with nations in different universes, but not "region". The Pacifics especially would be ridiculous, because of the huge number of even just WA nations in them. It's a widely-accepted fact among RPers, yourself included, that not all WA nations exist in the same universe. That's why we talk about the WAHQ as a multiversal nexus, to make it possible for all our nations co-existing here.

If you have a small region where everyone in the region belongs to the same RP group, then good for you, but the majority of regions doing regional things do them for Gameplay, not RP purposes. And I seriously don't want to give the only nice part of these forums over to the Gameplayers, who have all but destroyed the off-forum game for those who don't want to play their stupid games.

---

Does any region exist ICly

No.

---

But here, does this change things

No. Your nation can say that blue is red, but that doesn't make it true for other nations, unless they agree with you. Which, currently, at least Wallenburg and I don't. And neither does Tinfect, whom you tried to use as an example for your case.

---

Not gonna lie, this is not a persuasive debate for changing the rule.

Good as I don't want it changed.

[Sciongrad]

Would it be branding if I used the nation Europe to submit a proposal?

It would be a real life violation.

It would? Would it be a RL violation for Kenny, whose nation name, "Omigodtheykilledkenny," is also a RL reference?

[Araraukar]

It would be a real life violation.

It would? Would it be a RL violation for Kenny, whose nation name, "Omigodtheykilledkenny," is also a RL reference?

More like copyright violation...

[Excidium Planetis]

How does it not exist in Character? The nations exist in character, they are in close proximity ICly and form a political bloc. Why should the region not be considered IC?

Nations' RP realities clash. You'd have to accept that a region can span several universes and still be a "region", which just doesn't make any sense. You could have a political coalition with nations in different universes, but not "region". The Pacifics especially would be ridiculous, because of the huge number of even just WA nations in them. It's a widely-accepted fact among RPers, yourself included, that not all WA nations exist in the same universe. That's why we talk about the WAHQ as a multiversal nexus, to make it possible for all our nations co-existing here.

If a multiversal coalition exists ICly, why can it not be mentioned ICly? Why can the multiversal coalition called The North Pacific not be mentioned?

It would be a real life violation.

It would? Would it be a RL violation for Kenny, whose nation name, "Omigodtheykilledkenny," is also a RL reference?

No. Kenny doesn't exist in the real world, that's clearly a work of fiction.

[Aclion]

[

It would? Would it be a RL violation for Kenny, whose nation name, "Omigodtheykilledkenny," is also a RL reference?

No. Kenny doesn't exist in the real world, that's clearly a work of fiction.

I'm gonna start drafting legislation to ban the use of dementors in prisons.

[Araraukar]

If a multiversal coalition exists ICly, why can it not be mentioned ICly?

In proposal text it'd be branding, that's the whole point, and in any case, a coalition like that wouldn't be the one writing things up for international legislation. It's not like the EU as a whole is writing up things for the UN in real life.

Why can the multiversal coalition called The North Pacific not be mentioned?

Because it's not an in-character anything. If Plembobria wants to prove otherwise, they're free to post links to their region-wide RP reality. Something that big has to have factbooks somewhere...