Question on nation/region naming

[Tzorsland]

Now that this thread has made it clear that people cannot make SC proposals with regions / nations that were created with non PG-11 wording, I have a concern that this can be used and abused by people who would want to avoid the interference of the SC alltogether. Basically this is saying that if you want to have your region free from any attempt at liberation, condemnation or commendation, you just need to put non PG-11 wording into the name.

This probably has a greater potential impact on nation names, since these can be used to propose, endorse and give regional delegate votes to resolutions, the first example is permanently kept on the record of the resolution. The question I have is: Does this PG-11 wording for SC proposal titles in effect require a PG-11 requirement on the creation of nation and region names?

[Katganistan]

If you create a nation with an inappropriate/obscene name, it gets deleted because we can't change nation names without causing armageddon.

If you create a region with an inappropriate name, it'll get changed. And you may be warned.

If you have a question as to whether a name is allowable, it probably isn't.

[Kalibarr]

So Shitty Proposal Writing Shouldn't Exist?

[Corporate Embassy 7]

I asked this question a while ago. I received the answer that it should not be used in a SC resolution, but was told nothing of whether the region should be deleted or not.

If it's really this huge a problem, I can just move my puppet out.

[Tzorsland]

I want to make it clear that I have no qualms with the region of Shitty Proposal Writing. After all, it's a one nation region just sitting there. I'm sure that it will never make it to the top region list in a given ranking or even worse be nominated for region of the day. (OK, I'm getting off topic here, this is not the place to point out how many places on Nation States have more exposure to potential students than just the title of the SC proposals.)

And I don't see the potential for non PG-11 regions to go founderless, be invaded and have an actual need for liberation, assuming that every person who founded such regions knew that their nation could never be liberated in the first place.

I do worry about some raiding region being named "Shitty Raiders" and thus find safe haven in a region that can never be condemned.

[Tzorsland]

If you create a nation with an inappropriate/obscene name, it gets deleted because we can't change nation names without causing armageddon.

The problem is, Kat, is that there is a huge difference between "PG-11" and "inappropriate/obscene" and its the former that is being the criteria for the SC resolutions. This is clear when considering the word "Shitty."

Would you, for example, delete the nation name "Shitty Undergarments?" It doesn't sound inapproporate or obscene to me.

[Romanar]

If you create a nation with an inappropriate/obscene name, it gets deleted because we can't change nation names without causing armageddon.

The problem is, Kat, is that there is a huge difference between "PG-11" and "inappropriate/obscene" and its the former that is being the criteria for the SC resolutions. This is clear when considering the word "Shitty."

Would you, for example, delete the nation name "Shitty Undergarments?" It doesn't sound inapproporate or obscene to me.

It seems to me that if "Shitty Undergarments" can't be cleaned up, it should be deleted.

[Ardchoille]

Calm down, Tzors. If any region or nation is named in such a fashion that it deserves DEAT, it gets DEAT. It's not going to survive to become the object of a C&C. If by chance it has managed to escape mod notice, it's certainly going to get it, and die, when a C&C about it comes to the floor.

The "PG-11 titles" rule applies, as we both know, to General thread titles. My post gives AMOM advice on a mildly contentious detail of an SC proposal that was still open to change; "Shitty Proposals" was a region-of-convenience, easily abandoned. I sought the advice of an American-speaking mod on the name's impact in that dialect. We concluded that, since it could be easily changed, it might as well be: a recommendation based on mod discretion, context and circumstances.

To clarify still further, the original proposal was deleted on grounds of content, not title.

[A mean old man]

To clarify still further, the original proposal was deleted on grounds of content, not title.

The original proposal "Condemn Shitty Proposal Writing" could not have been deleted, as it was never submitted.

[Ardchoille]

Touche. Sorry: "... if submitted, would have been rejected".

I should certainly allow you the kudos for having had enough sense to draft before submitting, as all too many people don't bother, with the result that they submit illegal proposals and get a WA-prop warning on their nation.

[A mean old man]

Well, I did break my own personal "MUST DRAFT" rule with this most recent one, however I had reviewed it enough on my own for it to be legal and pass-able (obviously...).

But yeah, I had enough sense to know that that one called for a drafting and a mod ruling. I really didn't expect to submit it, anyway - as the l33tsp33krz say, it was mostly "for teh lulz."