Could we have another couple of rules for SC resolutions?

[Bears Armed]

Other than that, I think we should deal with the other problems, when they actually become problems. I got to be honest and say if two people were credited as co-authors, I wouldn't give a crap, and yet according to GA rules thats illegal.

I suppose so - I went with 1 co-author, as thats what the GA has. I guess there'd be more justification for the SC having a higher limit, but I still feel a limit would be appropriate.

Oh, and I know how I could cite an entire region as a co-author legally in the GA, but I'm not telling...

If your idea is "Create a puppet named after the region, and list that as the co-author" then it's already been tried, and has been ruled illegal: using puppets named after regions, alliances (such as the NSO or DEFCON) or think-tanks, or even pairs of nations (such as 'Cobdenia and St Edmund', to name one short-lived example from the past...) for this purpose is not allowed.

[Todd McCloud]

Well... here's the rules I tend to follow. I can't really impose them on anyone, but I do think they represent some baseline:

• No self-nominations - This one is kind of hard to detect, but come on. If it is determined that someone pretty much wrote the thing and sent it to a nation to submit it, the C&C should be removed. This isn't a tool used to glorify one's self; if that were the case, C&C's would be hollow.
• Must have proper format[ - This includes proper tags, spelling, grammar, etc. I think of it this way: a nation that has just joined NS will read these proposals if it snoops around enough; they aren't really hard to find anyway. What goes through their mind when they see improper format on a proposal, lack of spelling or what not? Does it not seem like a joke, in a way? Plus, if some nation or some region was C&C'd with bad formatting or spelling or grammar, couldn't the resolution be repealed and a better one put up that would pass quite easily? Though it does waste a bit of time, it's better for me if we have a well-written proposal rather than one that is not.
• Must be original - Basically, this covers plagiarism, but also prevents the use of 'cookie cutter' C&C's. This is a little difficult to explain, but basically if a slew of C&C's are passed whereby they have roughly the same format, structure, etc, it can get boring. Some creativity in writing a C&C should be used, but not too creative as to deter from the C&C itself.
• Limits the amount of co-authors - I personally believe that if 3-4 people helped write a proposal, that is, *significantly* contributed to the proposal to the point where the original author(s) cannot solely claim responsibility for their work, such a nation should be added to the list. However, it is extreme to label four co-authors, and there should be no reason to go above four.
• It's not used as a tool for attacking some nation or some region - Again, hard to prove, especially when it's a condemnation. But, if it's believed or determined that a nation which submits a proposal is doing it out of spite, the C&C should be removed. We want to avoid personal vendettas here, as we've already been through such a mess earlier before. It should be as non-bias as possible, outlining the facts, and staying away from personal opinion.

[Unibotian WASC Mission]

Other than that, I think we should deal with the other problems, when they actually become problems. I got to be honest and say if two people were credited as co-authors, I wouldn't give a crap, and yet according to GA rules thats illegal.

I suppose so - I went with 1 co-author, as thats what the GA has. I guess there'd be more justification for the SC having a higher limit, but I still feel a limit would be appropriate.

Oh, and I know how I could cite an entire region as a co-author legally in the GA, but I'm not telling...

If your idea is "Create a puppet named after the region, and list that as the co-author" then it's already been tried, and has been ruled illegal: using puppets named after regions, alliances (such as the NSO or DEFCON) or think-tanks, or even pairs of nations (such as 'Cobdenia and St Edmund', to name one short-lived example from the past...) for this purpose is not allowed.

Nope, its more innovative then that. You couldn't have gotten away with it a year ago.

[Krioval]

OOC (in case it wasn't apparent):

If there's going to be a co-author limit, then there should be a limit to the number of non-primary author/non-target of resolution nations or regions. As in, don't list an entire swath of nations invaded by/defended by a C/C target.

[Flibbleites]

• Must have proper format[ - This includes proper tags, spelling, grammar, etc. I think of it this way: a nation that has just joined NS will read these proposals if it snoops around enough; they aren't really hard to find anyway. What goes through their mind when they see improper format on a proposal, lack of spelling or what not? Does it not seem like a joke, in a way? Plus, if some nation or some region was C&C'd with bad formatting or spelling or grammar, couldn't the resolution be repealed and a better one put up that would pass quite easily? Though it does waste a bit of time, it's better for me if we have a well-written proposal rather than one that is not.

Spelling and grammar errors aren't illegal in the GA, why should they be illegal in the SC?

[A mean old man]

I agree they shouldn't be illegal, but I am noticing that horribly written SC proposals are getting a lot more support than horribly written GA proposals.

[Ardchoille]

I've brought up the branding problem before and was told the branding rules do not apply in the SC. I suppose I could submit a C&C with dozens of co-authors as a test case. I'll do that now.

Ah, but, that proposal had only three actual co-authors, since your name is legion, MSR.

Nonetheless, I killed it, but not on the basis of the number of authors. Players are supposed to police proposals and inform the mods if there are flaws that should, in their opinion, prevent the proposal going onto the list to seek delegate endorsements.

A player pointed out that the log-ins of two of the alleged authors showed that they had not been on NS for more than 1000 days, in one case, or more than 900, in the other. In NS terms, they don't exist, and so can't be listed. (The player in this case was that annoying rules-lawyer Ardchoille, and she didn't even send a GHR; but it could and should have been any one of the SC players, just as it could have been with the plagiarised Liberation.)

So, okay, that gives a reason for limiting the number of authors: delegates shouldn't have to check a list of 77 nations to find out if each one is still extant. Four does seem a natural limit; if I write it in the "advice and guidance" tone of the existing C&C text, that would still allow a player to include a couple more if it were truly necessary, knowing that overdoing it would just cheese off delegates.

For what it's worth, I've got a week off now and intend to overhaul what's come up with the SC so far and try for a rewrite that will include rules, as well as guidelines. I have every intention of co-opting Hack, if I can catch him (as payback for that "Best. Proposal. Ever" ), and I'll be looking at ways to incorporate some of the points about content people have made, such as the OP here, Todd's post above and A Mean Old Man's thread. Not planning to write a novel, though.

Most of the points of concern have been hashed over in the past few months, so no need to repeat them, I'll find 'em. But if there's something you really want looked at, you can *sigh* *wince* TG me with a link to wherever you said it, or just shoot a summary across. Six to eight lines, max, if you want them read.

EDIT: Re spelling: I'm with Flib on that one.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

So, okay, that gives a reason for limiting the number of authors: delegates shouldn't have to check a list of 77 nations to find out if each one is still extant. Four does seem a natural limit; if I write it in the "advice and guidance" tone of the existing C&C text, that would still allow a player to include a couple more if it were truly necessary, knowing that overdoing it would just cheese off delegates.

Maybe a requirement that if more than one co-author is listed then the author must use [nation] tags? As far as I can tell the [nation] tag will not work if used with a non-existent nation.

[Unibotian WASC Mission]

So, okay, that gives a reason for limiting the number of authors: delegates shouldn't have to check a list of 77 nations to find out if each one is still extant. Four does seem a natural limit; if I write it in the "advice and guidance" tone of the existing C&C text, that would still allow a player to include a couple more if it were truly necessary, knowing that overdoing it would just cheese off delegates.

Maybe a requirement that if more than one co-author is listed then the author must use [nation] tags? As far as I can tell the [nation] tag will not work if used with a non-existent nation.

Yep, they just go black. That would be pretty clever.

But if we were requiring [nation] tags, it would be a good idea for a preview button for proposals.

[Unibotian WASC Mission]

Except couldn't a dead nation be the co-author of a proposal? I mean, what if they wrote it mostly, and the author was merely submitting it with his blessing?

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

But if we were requiring [nation] tags, it would be a good idea for a preview button for proposals.

We really need a preview button for proposals anyway.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

Except couldn't a dead nation be the co-author of a proposal? I mean, what if they wrote it mostly, and the author was merely submitting it with his blessing?

I don't know if I like that. In an NS sense, dead nations (and their players) don't exist. It would be like citing the government of the Roman Empire, or one of their Emperors, in a RLUN resolution.

[Unibotian WASC Mission]

Except couldn't a dead nation be the co-author of a proposal? I mean, what if they wrote it mostly, and the author was merely submitting it with his blessing?

I don't know if I like that. In an NS sense, dead nations (and their players) don't exist. It would be like citing the government of the Roman Empire, or one of their Emperors, in a RLUN resolution.

True, it would be odd. But I could see the application... Roman Law, for example, in the case of the European Union.

[Bears Armed]

Or regime-change, with a renamed (OOC: new) nation in place of the old one...

[Ardchoille]

Of course, in the real world, the player behind a dead nation could well have co-authored many a proposal by being active on an offsite (UNOG, for example). That's life, Jim, but not as NS knows it. On NS, the afterlife does not include proposal authorship (no matter how great your sins!).

Bears Armed, if there's been a regime change, then the new government gets the glory for all good things done under the past government, while avoiding the odium of anything bad.

(Why am I having to say this to a long-time player on a political site? )

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

On NS, the afterlife does not include proposal authorship (no matter how great your sins!).

I don't see why. When Fris asked us reconsider UN funding, he stipulated that Sophista, at the time a CTE'd nation, be listed as co-author. He eventually wasn't (for reasons I don't remember), but the idea of retroactive co-authorship wasn't frowned upon.

[Ardchoille]

We stand on the shoulders of giants, and all that. I'm not arguing against historical debt being acknowledged, which is what Fris was doing in the example you give. I'm arguing against citing dead nations as co-authors when they plainly couldn't have been co-authors. As the SC didn't exist when the two listed were active, they didn't establish a philosophical foundation for SC resolutions that would oblige subsequent authors to acknowledge them.

[A mean old man]

But if we were requiring [nation] tags, it would be a good idea for a preview button for proposals.

We really need a preview button for proposals anyway.

This I can definitely agree with.