NationStates

Posted: **Mon Sep 11, 2017 1:57 pm**

Excidium Planetis wrote:I'll stop parodying your argument here and just say this is Bullshit. Point me to any repeal where a player purposefully added in Category and Strength to a repeal. I don't even think that is legal. (Is it? Can one repeal a resolution for being the wrong Category or the wrong Strength?)

Only repeals create game generated text in the body of the proposal. You know that I'm not talking about category and strength because I already told you in discord that I wasn't. All repeals have a single line that reads "[so and so resolution] shall be struck out and rendered null and void." That's enough for me.

Lastly, if the Operative Clause rule is not necessary and indeed useless as you have said so many times, why is it still a rule? Why did you not remove the operative clause rule?

I don't believe the operative clause rule is useless and in fact, my argument is the exact opposite. I am arguing that the text generated by the repeal qualifies as an operative clause and thus satisfies the operative clause rule as it is written. That is why GenSec initially framed this as a change in interpretation and not a change in the rules.

This borders on malicious quote editing. Clearly I said after that:

I'm getting really sick of this from you and Wallie. Report me if you think I broke a rule, don't accuse me.

Posted: **Mon Sep 11, 2017 7:51 pm**

Bananaistan wrote:"Or other bodies take or not take some action" suggest to me that it would be OK for a proposal to merely have a committee taking action without any requirement of member states.

Also, it appears that this wording would allow an operative clause merely requiring the WA itself take action.

Good catch. And obviously something I wouldn't support. Mostly because:

Sciongrad wrote:Only repeals create game generated text in the body of the proposal.

Posted: **Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:18 pm**

Ara's post above seems to have evinced a condition of reading as little as possible and pretending that nothing spoken after the initial statement applies. I hear there's a doctor who says the vaccines cause autism. Perhaps we ought not care at all that he later retracted the article and that all evidence proved it wrong – after all – he published it at least once!

Posted: **Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:19 am**

Sciongrad wrote:Only repeals create game generated text in the body of the proposal.

Yeah, and I'm not sure why.

You know that I'm not talking about category and strength because I already told you in discord that I wasn't. All repeals have a single line that reads "[so and so resolution] shall be struck out and rendered null and void." That's enough for me.

But that line includes Category and Strength. This breaks character. Nobody ever writes that into a repeal, therefore, it cannot be treated like a part of text written by a player.

I don't believe the operative clause rule is useless and in fact, my argument is the exact opposite. I am arguing that the text generated by the repeal qualifies as an operative clause and thus satisfies the operative clause rule as it is written. That is why GenSec initially framed this as a change in interpretation and not a change in the rules.

And yet you have said the Operative Clause rule is useless.

Now, if it is indeed useful, and the Operative Clause rule is an unquestionably necessary part of the rules, as I have said and you have denied...

As proposals required to have an In Character operative clause in the text?

And if so, how can the game added text be In Character when it refers to Category and Strength?

I'm getting really sick of this from you and Wallie. Report me if you think I broke a rule, don't accuse me.

I neither believe you broke a rule nor accused you of such. I do not believe this quote editing was malicious.

Posted: **Tue Sep 12, 2017 12:09 pm**

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Ara's post above seems to have evinced a condition of reading as little as possible and pretending that nothing spoken after the initial statement applies.

Well, it's good enough for you...

EDIT: And I still wouldn't support anything that wants to put it into the rules that an operative clause doesn't need to have an effect on the member nations/their inhabitants.

2nd EDIT:

Excidium Planetis wrote:And if so, how can the game added text be In Character when it refers to Category and Strength?

We do that all the time in IC, though, referring to strengths and categories, when giving IC advice on proposals. I've always treated it as just a bureaucratic step that needs to be done, like how a council/committee in real life needing to have last meeting's details gone over despite eveyone at the table having been there last month.

Posted: **Tue Sep 12, 2017 12:21 pm**

Araraukar wrote:And I still wouldn't support anything that wants to put it into the rules that an operative clause doesn't need to have an effect on the member nations/their inhabitants.

And how exactly would that affect the rules you seem to care so much about? They don't talk about operative clauses. The old version of the rules doesn't talk about operative clauses. The Enodia Protocol version of the rules (where they are applicable, because some of those rules didn't then exist) don't talk about operative clauses.

The word operative doesn't even show up in the ruleset until very recently and it still doesn't show up in the applicable rules, which according to the conservative interpretation, is based on a matter of statistics: i.e. not operative clauses. Statistics having to do with operative clauses, certainly, but rather the inclusion of statistically justifiable clauses. Which happen to not be operative clauses.

Posted: **Tue Sep 12, 2017 12:27 pm**

Imperium Anglorum wrote:*snip*

This...

Bananaistan wrote:"Or other bodies take or not take some action" suggest to me that it would be OK for a proposal to merely have a committee taking action without any requirement of member states.

...is the bit I have issues with, as I thought would be obvious. Don't try to sneak that in and I'm fine as per operative clauses.

Posted: **Tue Sep 12, 2017 12:31 pm**

Araraukar wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:*snip*

This...
Bananaistan wrote:"Or other bodies take or not take some action" suggest to me that it would be OK for a proposal to merely have a committee taking action without any requirement of member states.
...is the bit I have issues with, as I thought would be obvious. Don't try to sneak that in and I'm fine as per operative clauses.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:And how exactly would that affect the rules you seem to care so much about? They don't talk about operative clauses. The old version of the rules doesn't talk about operative clauses. The Enodia Protocol version of the rules (where they are applicable, because some of those rules didn't then exist) don't talk about operative clauses.

The word operative doesn't even show up in the ruleset until very recently and it still doesn't show up in the applicable rules, which according to the conservative interpretation, is based on a matter of statistics: i.e. not operative clauses. Statistics having to do with operative clauses, certainly, but rather the inclusion of statistically justifiable clauses. Which happen to not be operative clauses.

Posted: **Tue Sep 12, 2017 8:15 pm**

Araraukar wrote:We do that all the time in IC, though, referring to strengths and categories, when giving IC advice on proposals. I've always treated it as just a bureaucratic step that needs to be done, like how a council/committee in real life needing to have last meeting's details gone over despite eveyone at the table having been there last month.

Do we? I don't recall referring to Strength In Character because proposals do not have a statistical strength In Character.

And even if someone like you does, does that mean that all GA players do? Should all GA players be forced to acknowledge stats as IC? Because that's what metagaming really is. Not forcing the acknowledgement of nuclear weapons, but forcing the acknowledgement of in game stats as a real thing in the IC universe.

Posted: **Tue Sep 12, 2017 8:28 pm**

Excidium Planetis wrote:I don't recall referring to Strength In Character because proposals do not have a statistical strength In Character.

Strength more rarely, I'll admit that.

Should all GA players be forced to acknowledge stats as IC?

No. Nor should all GA players be forced to acknowledge using repealed resolutions as valid arguments for new ones.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:And how exactly would that affect the rules you seem to care so much about? They don't talk about operative clauses. The old version of the rules doesn't talk about operative clauses. The Enodia Protocol version of the rules (where they are applicable, because some of those rules didn't then exist) don't talk about operative clauses.

The word operative doesn't even show up in the ruleset until very recently and it still doesn't show up in the applicable rules, which according to the conservative interpretation, is based on a matter of statistics: i.e. not operative clauses. Statistics having to do with operative clauses, certainly, but rather the inclusion of statistically justifiable clauses. Which happen to not be operative clauses.

Yes, and...

Araraukar wrote:This...
Bananaistan wrote:"Or other bodies take or not take some action" suggest to me that it would be OK for a proposal to merely have a committee taking action without any requirement of member states.
...is the bit I have issues with, as I thought would be obvious. Don't try to sneak that in and I'm fine as per operative clauses.

Posted: **Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:18 pm**

Araraukar wrote:This... ...is the bit I have issues with, as I thought would be obvious. Don't try to sneak that in and I'm fine as per operative clauses.

Yea, and I'm telling you that's both an invalid argument. Even if that rule theoretically leaves that possibility, it wouldn't. Ambiguity in one rule doesn't supersede another explicit rule. The Blocker, Committee, etc. rules do not require operative clauses. It doesn't sneak in anything. It doesn't change anything.

Posted: **Tue Sep 12, 2017 11:46 pm**

Araraukar wrote:
Excidium Planetis wrote:I don't recall referring to Strength In Character because proposals do not have a statistical strength In Character.

Strength more rarely, I'll admit that.

I can accept Category as some sort of weird off-shoot of resolution titles, ICly.

Strength, however, does not really make any sense In Character. Why would a resolution need a declaration of its Strength?

No. Nor should all GA players be forced to acknowledge using repealed resolutions as valid arguments for new ones.

...I'm not really sure what you are trying to say.

But at any rate, GenSec, by making a game text that refers to Category and Strength necessarily an IC part of the text, is forcing players to ICly acknowledge the game's category and strength. This is, simply put, not right.

Posted: **Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:38 am**

Excidium Planetis wrote:
No. Nor should all GA players be forced to acknowledge using repealed resolutions as valid arguments for new ones.

...I'm not really sure what you are trying to say.

For some reason, he thinks that my wording of the Operative clause rule will invalidate the existence of the current House of Cards rule.

Posted: **Wed Sep 13, 2017 2:45 pm**

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Ambiguity in one rule doesn't supersede another explicit rule.

Why have the ambiguity in the first place, though?

Posted: **Wed Sep 13, 2017 4:33 pm**

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Araraukar wrote:This... ...is the bit I have issues with, as I thought would be obvious. Don't try to sneak that in and I'm fine as per operative clauses.

Yea, and I'm telling you that's both an invalid argument. Even if that rule theoretically leaves that possibility, it wouldn't. Ambiguity in one rule doesn't supersede another explicit rule. The Blocker, Committee, etc. rules do not require operative clauses. It doesn't sneak in anything. It doesn't change anything.

Agreed.

Re: EP's argument. Overstated. This change will not affect most players' IC/OOC dynamic.

Posted: **Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:12 am**

Sciongrad wrote:Re: EP's argument. Overstated. This change will not affect most players' IC/OOC dynamic.

I don't think you understand.

1) The Operative Clause rule requires an IC Operative clause.
2) The game text clearly is not IC.

Therefore the game text cannot be used as an acceptable clause to evade the Operative Clause rule.

Saying that "this will barely affect the [declining] RP of the GA" does not establish either 1) or 2) as false, and therefore does not make an argument for this interpretation of the rules being anything other than a complete disregard for either the Operative Clause rule or metagaming.

How has GenSec decided to interpret the rule thusly? Because they personally want the game text to count? That's not how GenSec should rule on interpretation of the rules.

Because they think it would be better for shoddy repeals to make it through legally? That's not why GenSec should be front self stating rules either.

I can see no way that one could, accepting 1) and 2), reach the interpretation GenSec reached without just deciding to interpret things however you want regardless of what they say. So I must believe that GenSec does not believe either 1) or 2). Which is it?

Posted: **Thu Sep 14, 2017 8:15 am**

States of Glory WA Office wrote:Why have the ambiguity in the first place, though?

There isn't one. I probably should have said 'perceived ambiguity' above, but I was quoting Sciongrad from Discord there anyway, so I took a few liberties. The fundamental thing is that there isn't any ambiguity in the ruleset – even if there is perceived ambiguity in this rule, that does not (1) invalidate the existence of the other rules, (2) contradict the other rules, or (3) logically apply to the other rules – especially when those other rules make no mention of operative clauses, but rather, impose plausible statistical justification requirements.

Posted: **Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:41 pm**

Sciongrad wrote:This change will not affect most players' IC/OOC dynamic.

That doesn't make sense! The whole reason you're arguing that certain game-generated text should be ICified is so that the OOC limitations of GA resolutions can be explained through roleplay. But that entire framework, and consequently, the reasoning underlying it, falls apart if there are still OOC limitations to GA resolutions that can't be explained IC! You haven't yet explained how an IC ambassador could talk about 'a resolution to increase democratic freedoms' or 'a resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights'.

Posted: **Fri Sep 15, 2017 4:50 am**

States of Glory WA Office wrote:You haven't yet explained how an IC ambassador could talk about 'a resolution to increase democratic freedoms' or 'a resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights'.

Why would either be difficult? We get grandstanding all the time and especially in the preambles.

EDIT: Unrelated to the above; I don't like the idea of removing the active clause requirement from Repeals, I properly can't explain it in IC (without resorting to referencing Araraukar's bureaucracy, and I'm sure nobody wants that

), but I can still support the change as it seems that the majority of People Who Matter want to see the rule gone, for Repeals.

Posted: **Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:59 am**

States of Glory WA Office wrote:
Sciongrad wrote:This change will not affect most players' IC/OOC dynamic.

That doesn't make sense! The whole reason you're arguing that certain game-generated text should be ICified is so that the OOC limitations of GA resolutions can be explained through roleplay. But that entire framework, and consequently, the reasoning underlying it, falls apart if there are still OOC limitations to GA resolutions that can't be explained IC! You haven't yet explained how an IC ambassador could talk about 'a resolution to increase democratic freedoms' or 'a resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights'.

I feel like I once said this to someone verbatim in a different context...

EDIT: You cheeky little SoG! I did say this! I'll respond when I have more time.

Posted: **Fri Sep 15, 2017 5:34 pm**

Sciongrad wrote:
States of Glory WA Office wrote:That doesn't make sense! The whole reason you're arguing that certain game-generated text should be ICified is so that the OOC limitations of GA resolutions can be explained through roleplay. But that entire framework, and consequently, the reasoning underlying it, falls apart if there are still OOC limitations to GA resolutions that can't be explained IC! You haven't yet explained how an IC ambassador could talk about 'a resolution to increase democratic freedoms' or 'a resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights'.

I feel like I once said this to someone verbatim in a different context...

EDIT: You cheeky little SoG! I did say this! I'll respond when I have more time.

Wow. Sneaky.

NationStates

[RULES DISCUSSION] Repeals and Operative Clauses