[Discussion] Branding Rule Changes

[Excidium Planetis]

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.

How can it be branding if "North Pacific Working Group" submits a proposal? Why should it be?

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...

It isn't hard to find such things. Not only do they have a Regional Factbook thread, they have a map of the world of the North Pacific, and their own version of the WA (which frankly sucks, but it is in character).

The world of the North Pacific clearly exists as an In Character region which can be depicted on a map, with it's own system of international governance, and a depository for the information of those individual nations within the region. Additionally, the roleplay on the North Pacific's Roleplay board has effects on that RP reality, as their roleplay guide says:

An example: I want to invite all the Ministers of Economy in TNP to a summit in which we will set a common regional currency. The thread is set in modern times and it is open for everyone to join. So it may be titled: TNP Currency thingy, MT, Open

5. Map claims

So you made a map-based RP thread, and a change in boundaries is derived from it. The next thing is letting me know your claim.

You may open a new thread in the map subforum, with a short explanation and a link to the thread in question. If you can provide a picture of the new borders, then that's even better. Or you can post in the everlasting "want to be added to the map?" thread.

That's examples of RPs changing the IC regional currency and the IC map borders of the region.

[Sciongrad]

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

It's only a work of fiction in the real world. By that logic, references to real world literature, movies, or even apocryphal stories about RL would not be barred by the RL reference rule. A resolution about Lord of the Rings or Parks and Recreation would be totally legal under the RL reference rule?

[Excidium Planetis]

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

It would be a far more serious violation than branding. I sincerely doubt you have been around long enough to control that nation, as well as multying gets you kicked out of the WA. So much for your hypothetical question.

1) IA could have been given the account by the original owner, or perhaps IA is the original owner (the nation I am currently using is not the oldest nation I own, even though it is my primary nation)
2) Europe is not a WA member, so there is no multiing.

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

It's only a work of fiction in the real world.

Semantics.

By that logic, references to real world literature, movies, or even apocryphal stories about RL would not be barred by the RL reference rule. A resolution about Lord of the Rings or Parks and Recreation would be totally legal under the RL reference rule?

Inflatable Gandalf. Islam. The Orange Catholic Bible.

All of these are perfectly acceptable under the rule.

[Sciongrad]

Inflatable Gandalf. Islam. The Orange Catholic Bible.

All of these are perfectly acceptable under the rule.

1. You didn't answer my question as to whether a resolution solely about Lord of the Rings of Park and Recreation would be legal.
2. Inflatable Gandalf was an illegal proposal when it was submitted and without a doubt would be struck down unanimously by GenSec.
3. RL religions, when mentioned abstractly, do not count as RL references only because they often play such a large part in roleplay. However, specific RL religious texts and artifacts would certainly violate the RL reference rule. Mentioning Muhammad or Jesus would violate the rule.

To be clear, this isn't a debate. I'm telling you RL references to fiction are against the rules. Kenny's name isn't a violation because the author field doesn't count as the text of the resolution, which is what the GA ruleset affects. Similarly, a nation named Europe could submit a proposal without violating the rule. Again, this isn't an invitation for debate, it's me stating clearly to everyone that 1. RL references to fiction are still RL references and 2. RL references in the name field doesn't count. The only rule that affects the name field is the branding rule.

[Excidium Planetis]

1. You didn't answer my question as to whether a resolution solely about Lord of the Rings of Park and Recreation would be legal.

Yes.

To be clear, this isn't a debate.

No. It isn't. It was a joke, and you're starting to take this way too seriously, so, I'm just going to go back to NationStates now.

[Sciongrad]

No. It isn't. It was a joke, and you're starting to take this way too seriously, so, I'm just going to go back to NationStates now.

No offense, but I think the fact I took your argument at face value says more about the type of arguments you generally make than my ability to take a joke. Just saying...

[Excidium Planetis]

1. That is true, but he is then taking a substantially large risk.
2. So non-WA members can submit proposals now? Sweet!

It's called switching WA accounts.

No, this has become nothing more than a childish vendetta. No matter what Scion or the rest of the GenSec say, you immediatley fly off into a tangent that they are wrong.

1) You spelled immediately wrng.

Yes, I am aware of the irony.
2) Excuse me? Sciongrad hadn't even said anything at the time I made a joke that Europe would be a real life reference. I made a joke when IA asked a question, nothing more. Sciongrad asked about Kenny, so I continued the joke a bit, but clearly Sciongrad wasn't getting my humor, so I decided to end it.

We get it. You're still pissed you weren't chose to sit on GenSec.

Haha, you're really funny.

Perhaps this may have been the reason you weren't picked in the first place.

Because I am an edgy jackass? Yeah, probably.

So instead of trying to lawyer the rules into meaninglessness, why don't you try actually playing the game for a change?

I'm sorry, who are you?

[Frisbeeteria]

No. It isn't. It was a joke, and you're starting to take this way too seriously, so, I'm just going to go back to NationStates now.

You're getting dangerously close to trolling at this point. Knock it off and/or take a leave of absence from the thread for a while.

Frisbeeteria
Senior Game Moderator

[Imperium Anglorum]

...

Literally none of this response matters. Again, (directed to GenSec players, because apparently, that's also been lost here,) would it be branding if a nation bearing the name of a region (e.g. the nation 'Europe', the nation 'The North Pacific', the nation 'Europeia', the nation 'Balder', etc.) submitted a proposal, whilst also being an actor of that region?

Similarly, if Wallenburg submits a proposal and he shares the name of some region named 'Wallenburg', is that branding? As many of us recall, the nation 'World Space Administration' once existed in a region by the same name. Is it branding if that nation submitted a proposal on space policy? Where are the boundaries of the branding rule?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Why must people try and live out on the edge of the rules, instead of just trying to make a good faith attempt in following them? All it does is cause all of this unnecessary drama that is very much unneeded.

Did you read the title of this thread?

[Tzorsland]

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.

Why? Why doesn't it make sense? Why are you insisting that the term "region" has to be a contiguous geographical area in order for it to be "region." You can gerrymander all sorts of associations into a "region." Yes, even universe hopping groups. This is the one thing I can never understand; people insisting on suspension of disbelief while at the same time taking a absolutely literal definition to one of more terms and then insisting that it therefore cannot be reconcilable.

And every argument that applies to the region applies to the nation. How many so called "Nations" are actually role played IC as independent legal subdivisions of the main nation state who is not in the WA? Should we omit all references to nations because a nation wishes to role play in this manner? How far down into Role Play Bizarro Land are we going?

[Bears Armed]

Literally none of this response matters. Again, (directed to GenSec players, because apparently, that's also been lost here,) would it be branding if a nation bearing the name of a region (e.g. the nation 'Europe', the nation 'The North Pacific', the nation 'Europeia', the nation 'Balder', etc.) submitted a proposal, whilst also being an actor of that region?

Similarly, if Wallenburg submits a proposal and he shares the name of some region named 'Wallenburg', is that branding? As many of us recall, the nation 'World Space Administration' once existed in a region by the same name. Is it branding if that nation submitted a proposal on space policy? Where are the boundaries of the branding rule?

That's a good question. If the nation's name is just the name of the region itself, without any additions such as 'WA Working Group' or 'Regional Emissary' or whatever, then [under current rules] I'd probably consider it to be legal.

[Excidium Planetis]

That's a good question. If the nation's name is just the name of the region itself, without any additions such as 'WA Working Group' or 'Regional Emissary' or whatever, then [under current rules] I'd probably consider it to be legal.

But what if the name of the region is WA Working Group?

By allowing submitting nations to be named after regions, you allow almost any name, since regions can be named almost anything.

[Unibot III]

Historically, the answer has always been that tactic is illegal under branding. The South Pacific got in trouble for it, for starters.

I'd love to see the whole rule removed though. It only exists to be a side in the thorn of regions.

[Bears Armed]

That's a good question. If the nation's name is just the name of the region itself, without any additions such as 'WA Working Group' or 'Regional Emissary' or whatever, then [under current rules] I'd probably consider it to be legal.

But what if the name of the region is WA Working Group?

By allowing submitting nations to be named after regions, you allow almost any name, since regions can be named almost anything.

If it's submitted in the name of a 'Working Group' then I'd like to see proof -- in these forums, not offsite -- that the group actually has plural members who were active in the drafting. Without that proof, as rules & precedent currently stand, I'd consider it to be just advertising rather than accurate, and therefore call it illegal.
Also, any authorial names that falsely suggest some kind of official status within the GA or within NS as a whole would -- as I see it -- fall into the 'illegal' side of things.

[Frisbeeteria]

I'd love to see the whole rule removed though. It only exists to be a side in the thorn of regions.

If you're talking about the listing of regions as co-authors, that's one thing. If you're talking about entirely removing the Branding rule, that's a horse of a different color.

The original purpose of the branding rule was to prevent the then-common atrocity of ego boosting, i.e.

World Peace by Examplestan
"The President of the Ever-Loving Republic of Examplestan, today places before the World Assembly the output of Examplestan's exemplary legislative bureau, and hereby proposes that henseforth:
All defense spending shall instead go towards the promotion of butterflies and rainbows; and therefore, Peace In Our Time.
Signed, President-for-Life Horseface McSwarthymustache, Republic of Examplestan"

I know this was the original purpose, because I wrote the rule.

Do what you will with co-authoring credit. I don't see why this is such a fuss.

[Araraukar]

I don't see why this is such a fuss.

Because those of us who don't care for Gameplay and would prefer there to be an opt-out from that entirely (you can avoid GA affecting you simply by leaving WA, but when a regional delegate starts kicking nations off the region due to some takeover or whatnot, non-WA nations aren't excempt) don't want to see the regional dick-waving to enter into GA as well?

And also because if it actually magically did what IA & co. are saying about big regions taking interest and encouraging people to draft up proposals, it would just take even more potential authors away from this forum, as they'd do it on their offsite regional ones.

EDIT: To Tsor, EP, IA and whoever else is sounding sore about this, the above goes for your arguments as well. Whether or not a region is fully RP or Gameplay or a GCR feeder (or sinker, though I don't think anyone's been arguing on their behalf?) or whatever.

[Excidium Planetis]

Because those of us who don't care for Gameplay and would prefer there to be an opt-out from that entirely (you can avoid GA affecting you simply by leaving WA, but when a regional delegate starts kicking nations off the region due to some takeover or whatnot, non-WA nations aren't excempt) don't want to see the regional dick-waving to enter into GA as well?

How is branding in the GA a gameplay thing? If Gameplay erst want to put their region names in GA, RP proposals, I say let them. Have them drag their GP names through the RP mud of the Festering Snakepit.

...okay, I don't know what I am saying anymore. This is what happens when I work for nine and a half hours in one day.

And also because if it actually magically did what IA & co. are saying about big regions taking interest and encouraging people to draft up proposals, it would just take even more potential authors away from this forum, as they'd do it on their offsite regional ones.

1) You have absolutely no proof that this would happen.
2) If this was the case, why do Gameplayers use the SC forum? The SC already allows branding, unlimited branding, in fact, and is dominated almost exclusively by Gameplayers, most of whom have offsite forums to use. Why do they still use the SC forum then, hmmm? At times, the SC forum even gets more traffic than this one, so I would say that involving those GPers in the GA via regional branding would increase GA forum traffic.

[Araraukar]

How is branding in the GA a gameplay thing?

It's currently not because it's not allowed.

Have them drag their GP names through the RP mud of the Festering Snakepit.

...if only there was a way to make them do that...

...okay, I don't know what I am saying anymore. This is what happens when I work for nine and a half hours in one day.

*pats* Is alright, usually happens to me when I sleep less than that. (Like right now...)

1) You have absolutely no proof that this would happen.

...other than regional delegates saying earlier in this thread that it most likely would?

2) If this was the case, why do Gameplayers use the SC forum?

Because it's their playpen. I don't want them in my playpen, they've got cooties. (I'm not saying what I really think of that forum, as I'd likely get in trouble with the mods... )

[Tzorsland]

And also because if it actually magically did what IA & co. are saying about big regions taking interest and encouraging people to draft up proposals, it would just take even more potential authors away from this forum, as they'd do it on their offsite regional ones.

Seriously, do you want some cheese with that whine? (I recommend "Stinking Bishop.")

Having been around in the heyday of the offsite drafting forums, I can attest that all products of those forums were lovingly placed on the regular forums for comments. The result was a generally well worked product as opposed to something that needed a lot of work.

I suppose a lot of people get caught up in regional politics. It can be a downpour at times. I tend to be the duck, swimming on water in the rain. I don't care.

Now, secretly, I do have enough of the Nation States spirit not to take anything too seriously. Really deep down I would have loved to see those old repeals end with "Another Victory for Gatesville!" But that's just me. (And yes, very few of them actually game from Gatesville members, Irony is also key to any NationStates discussion.)

I'm definitely not Sore (I'm Tzor). It's the people who want to hide things from the GA; the people who want to create stovepipes between the various groups that place the game here who are the sore ones. And while the two responses to the problem tend either to be to knock all the other stovepipes down or just close ones eyes and pretend that there is only one stovepipe, we need to be working towards connecting the stovepipes not making them further isolated.

[Araraukar]

I'm definitely not Sore (I'm Tzor).

I see what you did there.

[Unibot III]

If you're talking about the listing of regions as co-authors, that's one thing. If you're talking about entirely removing the Branding rule, that's a horse of a different color.

Oh no, no just talk about two aspects of the rule -

(1) Preventing working groups from being cited as co-authors.

(2) Preventing regions or working groups being incorporated in the name of the author account.

At the moment, the branding rule has been artificially designed to deter regions from getting involved with the GA, basically because some here in the GA don't like gameplayers. Which is why most of the WA regulars here who have experience as delegates are in favour of the change and the WA regulars who dislike 'the other' are against the rule change.

It's a gameplay/WA pissing contest.

[Araraukar]

It's a gameplay/WA pissing contest.

And as Gameplay already has one part of the WA to piss on, I'm vehemently against giving it full access to the other one.

[Tzorsland]

And as Gameplay already has one part of the WA to piss on, I'm vehemently against giving it full access to the other one.

Oh give me a break. Gameplay nations and gameplay regions spend their time in the SC. They don't spend their time in the GA.

Nations and regions that spend their time in the GA do so already. There are very few regions that are both active in the GA/SC at the same time but those regions that are so huge that they support both types of players at the same time. If you really think raider defender regions are going to sit down and draft GA resolutions just to get their name on totally useless GA resolutions see a doctor immediately.

Just because gameplay people use regions is no reason to ban regions. They use nations as well. Do you want me to pull a Kirk on your logic, because your logic basically kills the entire GA in one shot.

[Araraukar]

Oh give me a break. Gameplay nations and gameplay regions spend their time in the SC. They don't spend their time in the GA.

At the moment, yes, because they can't get regional advertizement pushed in under the guise of a "work group".

Do you want me to pull a Kirk on your logic, because your logic basically kills the entire GA in one shot.