The New Guide to the Security Council

by **SkyDip** » Fri Sep 13, 2013 8:41 am

Below is a series of lessons I originally wrote for a WA class in Europeia that I have since transformed and updated to be a composite guide to the SC, including history (which I'm admittedly not an expert on), types of proposals, effects, etc. etc. Please don't post in this thread until I signal it is ok to do so, at which time I encourage and welcome comments on inaccuracies, mistakes, and the like. Thank you.

Also, if you have title suggestions, feel free to shout them out (figuratively speaking). I totally blanked that there was already a thread entitled as such in the SC.

Contents

by **SkyDip** » Fri Sep 13, 2013 8:43 am

Chapter 1

SC Overview/Differences in SC Proposals

History of the Security Council

The Security Council, unlike the General Assembly and, by extension, the UN before it, is a relatively new division of the WA. The Security Council was formed in 2009 after the resulting division between gameplayers and WA "regulars" on how Commendations and Condemnations should be used and even they should even exist at all. The SC arose from large-scale complaints that the gameplay aspects of NS (the SC parts) were incompatible with the current rules and procedures in the General Assembly, which were traditionally focused on more roleplaying aspects than actual responses for in-game actions. The greatest of these controversies concerned the battle that has colloquially become known as the Three-Walled War. With the newly-created Security Council came the power to Condemn regions and nations for particularly heinous activities, or Commend those who displayed exceptionally helpful traits. This, however, broke the proverbial “fourth wall” of the WA in allowing nations to essentially validate gameplay actions that existed outside of the confines of roleplaying nature of the WA. While it may seem like a trivial distinction, this created a huge rift in the WA and the membership there, and ultimately lead to the creation of two separate councils, the General Assembly, which retained focus, much like the UN before it, on roleplay aspects, and the Security Council, which took on the new role of recognizing gameplay actions.

Initially, after the formation of the two councils, SC proposals were still submitted in the same queue as General Assembly resolutions. This changed quickly, however, as the more ardent membership of General Assembly complained that the proposals stemming from this “new” branch of the WA were hampering the submissions of the General Assembly. Nearly a full year later, in February of 2010, the two councils were fully separated.

While the Security Council may be forever known as the “little brother” of the General Assembly and UN, the implications of the council and its powers, which will be detailed at great extent in coming lessons, have far-reaching consequences.

Differences in SC Proposals

At the initial forming of the Security Council, there were three types of proposals that could be passed-Commendations, Condemnations, and Repeals. These are the most basic of the SC legislation that can be passed, and we will cover each one in great detail in this lesson.

First, however, it is important to understand a critical difference between the Security Council and General Assembly. While the General Assembly deals in completely in-character legislation, the Security Council extends beyond that fourth wall, as was described earlier. While GA legislation can affect your nation and the stats of your nation, it does not have an actual effect on the NS world (pertaining to gameplay activities). This is not true of SC legislation, specifically the Liberation. Bear in mind that the SC is both an in-character (within the NS world) and an out-of-character (gameplay aspect) entity that can address both sides of the game.

Commendations

The first type of legislation we will investigate is the Commendation. This type of proposal, as the name implies, recognizes an outstanding region or nation for contributions to game. Indeed, the header for all Commendations is:

“A resolution to recognize outstanding contribution by a nation or region.”

Commendation proposals are not something that the Security Council hands out lightly. Currently, there are only 31* Commendations still standing (haven’t been repealed) meaning that, on average, there are less than 10 Commendations passed per year. It truly takes a high-quality candidate to merit a Commendation. Poor attempts at Commendations are often killed in the early stages of a proposal, and even when excellent proposals reach the voting floor, they too are sometimes voted down, as the Security Council and WA members who participate heavily in it have very high standards for these proposals. For example, Commend Glen-Rhodes, (SC#70) failed on an exact 50-50 margin first before passing in a second submission.

Condemnation

The second type of proposal in the SC is the Condemnation. This is, in essence, the antithesis to the Commendation. Condemnations are described by the Security Council as:

“A resolution to express shock and dismay at a nation or region.”

Condemnations are even less prevalent than Commendations, with only 23* active proposals to date. Taking into account the rules of the SC, which we will detail later, it is possible to hold multiple Commendations or Condemnations, as long as the material of in each respective proposal differs. Currently, Milograd is the only nation or region to hold such an “honor,” being Condemned twice by SC#77 and SC#97, respectively.

Again, Condemnations are most difficult to pass, much like Commendations. Generally, it is considered much harder to pass Condemnation proposals regarding roleplaying acts than gameplay acts (i.e. it is generally easier to pass Condemnations of raiders, griefers, etc. than it is for a nation who roleplays a genocidal leader with no dubious associated gameplay actions).

On a side note, collectively, Commendations and Condemnations are referred to in short hand as C&Cs.

Repeals

This category should be fairly explanatory-Repeals nullify previously passed legislation. Any other category of SC proposal is liable to face a Repeal, though, as we will see in the next section, Liberations are the major piece that faces repeals most often.

Liberations

Shortly after the formation of the Security Council in June 2009, a new category was introduced. This was a major turn of events for the SC, as it turned the council into a force in the raiding and defending (R/D) gameplay. Liberations, created in July 2009, have the power to remove current regional passwords and prevent an elected WA Delegate (WAD) from applying any more to a region. This was a response to region griefing and raiding that had resulted in many regions collapsing under invader forces, and was provoked by the invasion of Belgium, after which the game administrators decided that the current layout of the game was fundamentally unbalanced in favor of invaders. Liberations are, by far, the most powerful of all Security Council resolutions, as they can enact an actual effect on the game, unlike Commendations, Condemnations, and are more visible than the national stat changes conferred by GA proposals.

It is important to note that Liberations do not affect the passwording abilities of a Founder nation. If a Founder has imposed a password, a Liberation will have no effect. Liberations can only remove Delegate-imposed passwords and prevent Delegates from placing passwords in the future.

The Liberation has been called a tool of the defender forces since its inception, as it often used to lift invisible raider-imposed passwords on regions so that defenders may enter the region and attempt to return control to the natives. The Liberation has also been used preemptively by raider groups in an attempt to open regions up for invasion. This extensive involvement in the military gameplay of NS will be discussed more fully at a later date.

*Accurate as of 13 September 2013

by **SkyDip** » Fri Sep 13, 2013 8:45 am

Chapter 2

Effects of Proposals

Now that we have delved into the various types of proposals and how they work, we will now proceed into a more detailed account of what the actual effects of SC proposals are.

Commendations and Condemnations - Nothing More than a Shiny Badge

Before I get into the meat of this lesson, I want to clarify some terms.

Nominee/target - the nation or region which the proposal is attempting to commend/condemn/liberate (e.g. Condemn Macedon, Commend Kandarin, Liberate Belgium)
Author/OP - the nation that has written/proposed the legislation/the “original post” of a proposal draft
Resolution, proposal, legislation - I will use these terms interchangeably-all refer to Security Council “bills”
Original proposal - this is the target of a Repeal proposal

As the header to this section indicates, we will be starting with C&Cs. General Assembly/UN proposals can have in-game effects but only do so in-character. That is to say that GA proposals, if they pass, will only effect your national statistics, but never help or hinder your ability to play the game or have an effect on game mechanics. This is untrue for Security Council proposals, which can alter how the game is played in an out-of-character context.

Commendations and Condemnations, however, do not have that effect. The only “effect” of a a passed Commendation or Condemnation is, quite literally, a shiny badge to adorn the target nation or region. That’s it - there are no other consequences.

Commendation Badge

||

Condemnation Badge

You may be asking yourself “If there are no real effects, what’s so great or terrible about a C&C?” That’s a tough question to answer, and one that varies from target to target and is almost completely undefinable as far as setting a basic pattern is concerned. Depending on how serious (if at all) the target roleplays their deeds, a nation like Anthony Delasanta may stop their “evil” actions if condemned. Some nations genuinely do not want a Condemnation or do want Commendation. This is another way a C&C could have an effect-if the target feels so strongly one way or another it influences their actions. This, however, is really the extent of tangible effects that C&Cs have. With such little power other than a WA-sanctioned “good job,” Commendations have been described many times as simple back-patting by the international community meant to do no more than heap accolades on the membership of groups who can garner enough votes to pass such resolutions. However, when Condemnations are used correctly and the target region or nation is susceptible to their image on a world-wide level being tarnished, they can certainly deter some heinous actions, if not out-right force them to stop.

There are always attempts being made to make the SC a more dynamic force in the world by expanding the powers it has. The following are just two examples of new proposal types being suggested by nations in order to improve the Security Council.

Liberations - The Powerhouse of the SC

Stemming from the first lesson, we know that Liberations are by far the most potent of all SC resolutions. This power is derived from the ability to change the game mechanics by removing and preventing future Delegate-imposed passwords on a region. This simple yet powerful tool alone has created an entirely new facet to what was previously (by large consensus) a raider-dominated military game. Liberations, and indeed, the SC itself, rose from a large disjunction in the military aspect of the game, where raiders had far too easy a time of capturing and maintaining a hold on regions that they had invaded. With the Liberation, the military gameplay was balanced to allow natives and defender forces alike to combat invisible passwords set up by raiders.

The main distinction that causes confusion here is that Liberations can only remove/prevent Delegate passwords. Liberations have no effect on the ability of a Founder nation to password protect their region. Many a time, young authors make this crucial mistake, rendering their Liberation attempts pointless. It is imperative to remember this difference, both when drafting and evaluating proposals that may or may not garner your vote in the WA.

The consequences of a passed Liberation are akin to a reset button for a region. Most times, in the R/D game, regions without a Founder nation are the targets of raider invasions. Gaining the Delegate position and using the influence gained in the process to password the region is a major part of military gameplay. Liberations, if passed successfully, allow the region to be password protected by no one (assuming the Founder nation doesn’t rise from the grave). This, in turn, allows natives and defenders, if they are able to muster enough WA nations, to recapture the Delegate position and remove the invaders.

This tactic has been used in multiple ways. Belgium, after multiple raids and captures, was Liberated in the first ever Liberation proposal to pass. Usually, when Liberations have served their purpose and the invaders are removed from a region, the Liberation is repealed to allow the natives to password protect the region. This is not the case with Belgium. Because of the history in the region (some background here), if the Liberation were ever removed, it would immediately become the number one target of nearly every raiding organization in the world.

This can be contrasted to the Liberation of Feudal Japan, which was repealed shortly after the region was freed by defender forces, allowing natives to protect themselves with a password.

Yet another tactic, though not as common, has been attempted in the SC. Raider groups have proposed Liberations to “free” passworded regions, only to use the lack of password to simply out-muscle the natives and capture the region anyway.

Repeals - Undoing All That Work

As is often the case, repeals can be just as important as the proposal they are attempting to nullify. While most nations and regions would be perturbed if their Commendation was repealed or happy if their Condemnation was repealed, repealing C&Cs is not something that has far-reaching effects, much like the passage of the original proposal.

Repealing Liberations, however, is a major part of the SC’s workings. As was demonstrated before, repeals of Liberations can be used by either side of the R/D game to effect. Repealing a Liberation proposal of a slow, lethargic region may simply allow raiders to re-enter, capture the Delegate position, and impose another password before the natives can collect themselves. Repealing a Liberation of an alert region, on the other hand, can effectively seal the region to only the natives.

The Liberate/Repeal process is a very cyclic one in the Security Council. Of the 21 Liberation proposals that have passed, only eight remain in place (in no particular order, those regions are Democratia, Belgium, Utopia, Christmas, Greece, South Pacific, Nazi Europe and Republicans). Of those eight, four (Democratia, Utopia, Nationalist Union, and Republicans) have been refounded and have active Founder nations, rendering those Liberations functionally useless except as a preemptive measure should the Founder nation cease to exist. So essentially, only four Liberations that have been passed out of 21 are still standing and having an effect.*

*Accurate as of 13 September 2013

by **SkyDip** » Fri Sep 13, 2013 8:46 am

Chapter 3

How R/D Gameplay Affects the SC

Now that we have solidified a grasp of the different types of proposals, we can look further into the driving force behind the majority of what the Security Council does-the military gameplay of NationStates. This is a much shorter chapter than the previous ones.

The Security Council as a Child of Passworded Invasions

As we have discussed previously, the Security Council was formed from a split in the General Assembly when new proposals aimed to go beyond simple roleplayed law making. This split in the General Assembly was caused (or rather surfaced from) the defender ideology. Defenders had long been fighting raiders in game, and they were, by all accounts, losing that war - specifically, to the region Macedon. The group was difficult to combat to due to the post-occupation rules of the game, and the tactics used therein caused game-wide outrage over the complete destruction of regions and pass wording of regions so as to ensure the long-term occupations of the targets. Without tools to remove passwords, any raid would essentially succeed if the Delegate could muster enough influence to place a password on the target. The game admins obliged the vocal nations in creating the Security Council and the Liberation proposal to help combat this type of occupation and region-destruction. This is the most basic connection that the SC has to the R/D game. A competing issue was the relative disparity between military power in the game. Macedon-like invasions were simply unbeatable, and introducing the Security Council brought back more balance to the military gameplay aspects.

After the Security Council (and, specifically, Liberations) was implemented, there was a significant shift in the military gameplay of NationStates. The defenders now had a new, powerful tool to help them in reclaiming regions that had been password-protected and griefed by invaders, as well as bringing international recognition and infamy to any major raider groups or nations.

Influences on the SC from the R/D Game

The militaristic gameplay of NationStates has, for the most part, remained a very stable mechanism since the inception of the SC. Raiders move into a region, capture the WAD position, and proceed to alter the World Factbook Entry (WFE) and flag of the region, and may or may not stay after such changes to "grief" the region. Defenders have the task of removing said invaders and restoring the flag/WFE.

The SC has adapted to the invading game. Liberations are now (with the help of multiple, powerful WADs with defender sympathies) passed more swiftly than ever, though this doesn't necessarily mean defender forces are able to quickly remove raiders. Raider tactics have shifted to adapt as well. The new, most common tactic in raids involves piling-the process of having far more WA nations than is needed to take the Delegacy. Raider regions are now collaborating more than ever, and it is not uncommon to see multiple regions involved in a single raid.

A typical Liberation proposal, in the case of piling as described above, may not be enough in the current state of the R/D game. This was a major factor in proposing the Reform Region legislation. Defenders simply cannot muster the forces at times to liberate a region against a well-organized and piled invader group. Suggesting changes to the actual game mechanics like this make the Security Council an ever-changing entity.

Most recently, accepted proposals for gameplay changes include Annex, Reformation, and Custodian. While each of these changes requires some fleshing out and extensive discussion on the specifics of their effects, each provides some new and exciting options for the Security Council and the R/D component.

by **SkyDip** » Fri Sep 13, 2013 8:49 am

Chapter 4

Rules of SC Proposals

"Just four, little rules," whispered the crazed politician wandering outside the SC assembly building. "That's all we had to follow..."

The Security Council only holds four rules that proposals must comply with to be completely legal. That does not, however, mean they are easily kept. Multitudes of proposals are submitted monthly that get removed by moderation staff for containing illegalities, many of which are reported by SC regulars. It is highly encouraged to post ideas for legislation and drafts of proposals to the SC forum before submitting for the reason listed above. Plus, those knowledgable in the SC can help root out illegalities before submission this way.

Rule 1

R1 simply states that a member of site team in Nationstates cannot be Commended or Condemned for carrying out actions in those roles. Moderator abuse of power is taken very seriously, and the SC is not the place to deal with it. A mod cannot be Condemned for giving someone a warning, and cannot be Commended for the deletion of spam posts, an Issue Editor cannot be Commended for helping to craft issues, etc.

Rule 2

While not a complex rule in technicality, R2 is fairly extensive in its specificity. R2 is the common sense rule - don't plagiarize, don't duplicate proposals, etc. Furthermore, R2 specifies that repeals must address the subject matter of the resolution they are attempting to repeal and that proposals should not be used to deal with situations improperly. This last clause trips many people up. A nation can be accused of cheating, and subsequent nations attempt to Condemn that nation - this is illegal.

Rule 3

R3 simply states that all proposals must contain an operative clause (i.e. "The Security Council hereby commends Testlandistan"). This is the second-most often violated rule in the Security Council. Extravagant proposals have been written detailing either misdeeds or accolades of a nation but that forget to actually carry out the action of the proposal. R3 also states that proposals cannot do more than the operative clause (a Condemnation cannot force an embargo, etc.).

Rule 4

Rule 4 is that which keeps the WA gnomes busy on the SC side of things. Not only is R4 the most often broken rule, it is one of the easiest to break (the two go hand-in-hand, obviously). R4 states that proposals must read as of representing the voice of the Security Council - they must be in-character at all times. R4 has four specific divisions which read:

You cannot reference the "real world" outside of NationStates. This means you cannot reference, for instance, World War I in SC proposals (unless you are talking about an RP World War I), or Britain's Prime Minister, or the Chinese elections being rigged.
You must refer to nations as nations, not as the player behind them. This includes the use of pronouns such as "he" or "she" as opposed to "they". You can't call the target nation/region "he" or "she," because nations do not have genders. That is a feature of a player.
You cannot refer to the game, or events or actions in it, as part of a game. For example, it is illegal to say that "Testlandia is the best nation on this site!" because that references the game as an electronic entity.
Your proposal must be written from the perspective of the World Assembly. You cannot say "I propose we Commend Testlandia!" because that refers to the player, not the nation. Furthermore, you can't simply state that "TESTLANDIA Hereby Commend Examplestan!" because that is only the voice of your nation, not the Security Council as a whole.

While seemingly something easy to stay on top of, R4 is easily to most missed rule of the SC.

The following is an example of a submitted proposal with multiple errors in it - can you spot them all?

Liberate The Imperial League of Nations
A resolution to strike down Delegate-imposed barriers to free entry in a region.
Description: Liberation Act#001

WHERE AS- To form a better region, one must show better requirements for the qualifications and legalizations of each member nations of or to applying citizenship within the region.

Members of this Council, I (R4 violation) hereby appeal to you in recognition of this matter that 70% of our region has the capability of seeing to this matter! No requirements were made prior to applying for citizenship within its region. For example, The Imperial League of Nation. When I (R4 violation) was in this region there were no citizenship acquired to apply for this region but yet they tried to get rid of me for their own secrets of hiding everything from the eyes of its member nations and they falsely accused me of unreasonable matters and had me kicked out and banned forever because I (R4 violation) wasn't a nation who applied for citizenship and could not interact with anything within the government system. I (R4 violation) appealed to them to them stating that there weren't any telegram, or messages sent to me (R4 violation) from the Minister of Recruitment to apply for citizenship but they still ignored me. So, I (R4 violation) wish to Liberate the Imperial League of Nations to come to consideration of an apology act and to recognize full responsibility of Citizenship application when recruiting member nations.

WHERE AS- To form better relations with other member nations and make them feel welcomed within the region, I hereby request that all region apply to Citizenship Census requirements for each and all region within Nation State (could be interpreted as a violation of R4 by referring to the game).

WHERE AS- I ask Members of this council to take heed of my this message and to apply to my recognition and take action within this proposal.

And lastly, I hereby ask this Member Council to punish for the Imperial League of Nations wrong doings against me and that they be forcely apologize (R2 - going beyond the operative clause) for what they have done.

R3 - No operative clause

by **SkyDip** » Fri Sep 13, 2013 8:49 am

Chapter 5

Argumentation in SC Writing

Now that we have gained a basic understanding of the Security Council’s history, the types of proposals, and the rule set, it is now time to move forward with some less concrete ideas, namely, what to include in resolutions and common arguments made in each type of proposal.

It is important to understand, however, that much of the material included in proposals is based on what the author thinks is suitable material, even when some of it may not be (from the point of view of Delegates who approve proposals and SC regulars who often give or withhold merit from proposals). There is no “standard” for what constitutes acceptable material to include a Condemnation or the arguments one must demonstrate to make a valid Repeal, but I hope to give some guidelines and tips for material that makes for well-written proposals in the Security Council.

Blanket Coverage

First off, I will point out some things that often appear in SC proposals that fail to go to vote or get squashed after reaching quorum. These types of common-place actions often make their way into proposals, but often fail to real contribute anything to the substance of a proposal. A few primary tips that should be in the front of a potential author’s mind.

Include “world-changing” or “WA-affecting” material, and shy away from anything else that doesn’t support such material. Many first time authors forget or overlook the fact that both GA and SC proposals are written from the viewpoint of the WA as a whole. Therefore, the material used in SC proposals should be based on world-changing or WA-affecting actions. A few common-place trip ups to this “rule” are as follows:
- National rankings - Every nation is ranked in the daily census, and lots of them are good at certain things. Getting highly ranked in the census only takes answering issues properly over and over, and is therefore not good material for SC proposals.
- Economic, Civil and Political Rights rankings - Along the same lines as the first point, many nations in the world have either 0/100, 100/100, and anywhere in between. It’s not a unique or world-changing statistic, so leave it out.
- National Category - Just because a nation is classified as a “Psychotic Dictatorship” doesn’t mean they are ripe for Condemnation. Along with the first two points, multitudes of nations are in each category - that doesn’t make them all worthy of SC attention.
Take age into account. If a proposal surfaces with a target nation that has a national population of 5 million, the presenting author will receive nothing but snark. Anything worth Commending or Condemning in the world takes time and repetition. Usually, young nations like to Condemn/Commend other young nations for frivolous and terribly-written RP or in-region activities, neither of which the SC wants to pass.
Regional affairs don’t equate to world-wide affairs. A nation may be stunningly good or evil in one particular region, but if they fail to make an impression on the international stage, they aren’t really worthy of Commendation or Condemnation. The SC looks to highlight nations who go above and beyond a singular region and spread their influence across multiple facets of the world.
Why should we care? This is one of the seemingly most-asked questions when proposals are criticized. Along with including world-affecting material, the author needs to demonstrate why the world at large should care about their nominee. Failure to do so will result in proposals being shot down as “irrelevant” and “not important.”
Play to your audience. The majority of WA members, on the whole, don’t care about a specific RP or gameplay invasion campaign which one might detail in an SC proposal. They do, however, care about things like regions being invaded, awesome nations being Commended, and the like. There is also a prevailing ignorance, for lack of a better word, in the world that Commendations and Condemnations actually have an effect outside of a badge. Most nations are more than happy to Condemn or Commend nations that are adequately shown to be evil or good for the respective category regardless of their familiarity with the nominee or the fact that nothing will actually happen to said nation. Authors must use this to their advantage when writing and campaigning for their proposals.
Ask for help, and seek legality guidance if you aren’t positive one way or another. A crucial mistake for many authors is submission without going to the WA drafting forums first. There, experienced authors and long-time participants can help spot poor material, illegalities, and typos. There are always people with more experience than you with the rule set and who can make final determinations on whether or not a clause breaks the rules. Befriend these people and ask for their advice - it will save you time and headaches down the road, and hopefully will help improve your knowledge along the way.

Proposal-Specific Tips

Now for some more nit-picky things to watch out for when writing each specific type of Security Council legislation.

Commendations and Condemnations

Check the blanket coverage tips!! Did your idea/proposal/draft pass those examinations? If not, go back and rework before diving into specifics.
Tell us who the nominee has affected. Many times, the SC receives proposals that include nations helping out a singular region or, on the flip side, a region serving only to better the lives of its inhabitants. C&Cs should have a much more broad scope, and should focus on those nominees who have had their influence felt across multiple regions.
Set your goal early, and keep it in mind. Are you writing to exult a particular helpful, kind, or inventive nation/region? Do you want to give credit to a multiple-time author in the WA? Exonerate or shame an evil, destructive RPer? These type of questions should be answered and focused upon - don’t stray into irrelevant arguments and fluffery just for the sake of fluff. Make a composite list of arguments as to why your nominee should be Commended or Condemned and then expand on those ideas.
Don’t assume a Commendation or Condemnation is wanted. Your nominee could very well be against receiving a Commendation or Condemnation, and you should take that into account when writing. This is sometimes to referred to colloquially as the “badge of honor” argument - would the recipient be happy just for the fame, recognition, or face time?
Significance is key when writing C&Cs. Believe it or not, the vast majority of the Security Council (and WA, by extension) doesn’t care to hand out C&Cs for things like “being awesome” or “being evil” without some examples of how and why that happened. Insignificant things like issue results, national title, posting style, etc. aren’t enough. Give your proposal as much meat as you can.
Emulate successes before you, draft, and don’t forget Rule 3. Once you have a solid list of transgressions or accolades as appropriate, it is always helpful to look back on previous successes that others have had. Read up on some examples of your proposal that passed and get a feel for the stylistic nuances of the SC. Then, put your arguments into a draft, adding an operative clause at the end. Post it to the forums, and let the world admire your work.

Liberations

Don’t assume a Liberation is even necessary or wanted. Much like C&Cs, the nominee and inhabitants thereof should be consulted before rushing into a Liberation. Furthermore, this basic chart can help one to deduce if a Liberation is necessary.

*Original image credit to Unibot and this thread

After such a determination has been made, then asking the potential recipient is in order.
Consider (carefully) the military ramifications of a Liberation passing. Even if the author isn’t involved in a military struggle one way or another, many nations and regions in the game are, and a Liberation could prove as a serious affront to one side or another. Though you will probably hear about in the drafting area, it would be prudent to look into any potential military effects yourself.
Include the history of the nominee region and that of the offending region. Give us some history - why is this region worth a Liberation, and why should we save it from those who enforced a password? The more we know about the nominee and those who are in control of the region the more likely nations are to vote in favor of a Liberation.
Again, significance can’t be overlooked. The SC is much more stringent about their Liberations that C&Cs because Liberations can actually change the game. As a general rule (though there are exceptions to every rule, some mentioned in Chapter 2), there’s not much point to Liberating a region with
1. No password
2. No real “community” or “natives”
3. No activity or decent levels of membership
4. No real threat to the region

Repeals

For Liberations, consider the political and military ramifications of a repeal. Alongside how passing a Liberation could send ripples throughout the military community, a repeal of one could do the same, if not more, damage. Carefully consider who stands to gain from a Liberation being in place and who would like it better if it were removed.
Consider how the target of the original legislation feels. Perhaps someone ardently wants to keep their Condemnation that you are trying to repeal. This should be taken into account.
Remember to address the content of the work you are attempting to repeal. Repeals must, under Rule 2, address the content of the piece they are attempting to remove. This can be done by attempting to prove the opposite of points made, or simply counterarguments (more than just the opposite of the original argument.)

SC authors that take these rules into account when writing should find more success.

by **SkyDip** » Fri Sep 13, 2013 8:50 am

Chapter 6

Gameplay vs. Roleplay in the SC

In Chapter 5, we covered the basics of argumentation in writing an SC proposal with the best chance of passing. What we have glossed over to this point is the differentiation between Roleplay (RP) and Gameplay actions and how they are dealt with in the Security Council.

Since the SC was created primarily A) out of military conflict and B) to separate the Gameplay components from the RP components of the General Assembly, it stands to reason that the Security Council would be primarily a Gameplay-based body. As is shown next, that (from a numbers standpoint) largely holds true.

It’s a Gameplay World

Of the 80 passed C&Cs, 57 can be described as mostly to purely based on Gameplay material. In addition to those pure Gameplay C&Cs, another four are somewhere in the middle, incorporating both RP and Gameplay elements. That leaves a meager 19 C&Cs that are purely RP-based, less than one-fourth of the total passed (including repealed resolutions).

While there is certainly a Gameplay bias toward what the SC tends to pass, it’s not uncommon to see a well-written RP C&C pass. However, being mainly inhabited by the “specialized” part of the Gameplay community that is the R/D sector, many SC regulars hold the opinion that RP can be carried out by anyone on a fictional scale and should therefore meet much more rigorous standards than that of Gameplay material. Furthermore, Roleplay takes a bad rap in the SC because any nation - despite their age, writing ability, knowledge, etc. can commit heinous crimes or play the white knight. Gameplay takes action, whereas Roleplay takes a pen and an audience, no matter how terrible the product may be.

Up to this point, we have also been disregarding the Liberation, which is a clear and singular Gameplay entity. Adding that into the mix would diminish the overall sway that RP has on Security Council resolutions as well.

It is also prudent to note that the Security Council has seen a stretch of Gameplay-based dominance over the last months and passed C&Cs. Of the past 30 C&Cs to be ratified, only seven are purely RP based (one mixed, 22 Gameplay) and the last 13 resolutions to pass were all Gameplay-based. That’s a significant run for Gameplay if we look at the overall trend of RP-based C&Cs popping up once every four times.

A few take away implications from this should be readily obvious. The Security Council is largely dominated (as judged by passed proposals) by Gameplaying. This can be causally correlated to the fact that the Security Council acts primarily at the behest of the R/D community, which are a sizable faction of Gameplayers.

Standards for Roleplay Material in a Gameplay Security Council

Written by Milograd

Given the vast disunity that is a core trait of the NS-forum-based nation roleplaying community, it's no surprise that there is no uniform or popular opinion regarding commendations and condemnations for nation-based roleplaying. Some members of the community incorporate the SC into their RP, some think that the WA has no place in their RP, and some treat the SC as an OOC act of recognizing or appreciating a nation that should have no IC bearing. Nonetheless, the standards for commending or condemning nations for roleplaying are more or less constant amongst those who interact with the SC as RPers:

Quality - High quality content and reputable roleplaying conduct are considered a must for a nominee.
Impact - Any nation can do something good or evil, but a large impact is rare. As a rule of thumb, if a lot of nations can point to the nation and say that they recognize their actions and/or that their nations have been affected by it, either directly or indirectly, then it is likely that this criteria is met.
Uniqueness - IC actions and concepts that are particularly unique or performed uniquely are often cited as reasons to consider a RP resolution.

There is also another standard that should be considered, although it is more debated than the ones above:

It May Not Always be IC - Some nations deserve to be recognized even if they didn't terrorize the forum for years or save countless babies. OOC contributions, such as influencing a lot of writers through one's writing or improving the RP community through one's writing can be equally deserving of recognition if it is achieved on a notable scale. For instance, The Toy Theocracy, a nation that only posted in one thread, created an incredible and terrifying story that has become iconic, entertaining to no end, and influential.

Roleplay Resurgence?

Is it possible to think that the SC might reverse (or correct) course back to seeing more RP-based resolutions up for vote and passing? Taking into account the new SC changes that will be adopted in the future (Chapter 3), it seems unlikely. All three incoming additions to the Security Council serve only Gameplay purposes, so C&Cs will be the only remaining avenue for non-Gameplay material in the Security Council. Which, taking into account the reason the Security Council was originally created, is not an unseeable future.

By the time the Annex, Reformation, and Custodian proposals are put into place, Gameplay will increase their dominance on the Security Council, which will, in turn, become more populated by participants in the R/D game. This is not to suggest that the SC will see an end to RP Commendations or Condemnations, but the sheer volume of other proposal types will weigh heavily in the favor of Gameplay.

This Chapter accurate as of 16 January 2013

by **SkyDip** » Fri Sep 13, 2013 8:50 am

Chapter 7

Campaigning for a Proposal

After an author has drafted, redrafted, and finally solidified their proposal, it is time to submit. However, doing so comes with a few more battles to face, namely getting proposals to quorum. Once reached, quorum must be maintained for a proposal to go to vote. Quorum is defined as the minimum necessary number of Delegates for a proposal to go to vote. To attain quorum, and go to vote, a proposal must be approved by World Assembly Delegates across the world. The necessary number of Delegate approvals is 6% of total Delegates in the world. So, while the actual number is variable, it is always directly related to how many Delegates there are in the world. So, quorum can, by extension, be defined as 6% of total WA Delegates in the world.

Most of the time, proposals will not attain quorum without some work on the part of the submitting author or parties on their/the proposals behalf. To do so, one must campaign for a proposal, which most often times takes the form of sending telegrams (via stamps, API, scripts, etc.) to World Assembly Delegates to garner their attention and explain why this proposal should get their approval.

To write and deliver a well-written, legal campaign telegram, it is important to remember a few key points:

Make sure your TG is legal! Nothing is more annoying than paying for stamps or setting up a script to mass-telegram the Delegates of the world and then having the mods shut it down because of illegalities. Respect the rules of game pertaining to spamming, harassment, etc., and take into consideration regional tags like Anti-Security Council. Before the implementation of stamps, No SC/GA Campaigning regional tags existed, however, they have now been removed.
Be clear, concise, and be helpful to the reader. No one likes to read walls of text, and even less people like to read walls of text with grammatical errors and poor formatting. Proofread your campaign telegram - it often helps to identify errors if you read your piece out loud to yourself. Furthermore, be aware of the coding nuances of telegrams that aren’t posted. For example, many people are unaware of the [proposal] tag that exists and can be used in telegrams. To explain - when a proposal is submitted, it is then stored in queue until it reaches quorum. When in queue, each proposal is given an identification sequence that appears above the title (see photo below).

Credit and thank you to Talorin for use of their proposal

You can use that ID in campaign telegrams by using the proposal code. Using the example above, the following code, when used in a telegram, will link directly to the proposal:
Code: Select all
[proposal=talorin_1390307267]Link text here![/proposal]

Some tools that can be used for mass delivery of telegrams:

Stamps
Auralia's NationStates AutoTelegram
Shadow Afforess' NS Postmaster (ease of use is questionable for the inexperienced)

Once an at-quorum proposal reaches an update with no other proposals in front of it in the queue or at vote, it will go to vote by the membership of the World Assembly.

by **SkyDip** » Fri Sep 13, 2013 8:51 am

- RESERVED FOR FUTURE EXPANSION -

by **SkyDip** » Fri Sep 13, 2013 8:52 am

- RESERVED FOR FUTURE EXPANSION -

by **SkyDip** » Fri Sep 13, 2013 8:52 am

- RESERVED FOR FUTURE EXPANSION -

by **SkyDip** » Fri Sep 13, 2013 8:52 am

- RESERVED FOR FUTURE EXPANSION -

by **SkyDip** » Fri Sep 13, 2013 8:54 am

Okie dokie - that should be sufficient. Should anyone have any suggestions or questions regarding the material here, please feel free to post them here now.

Particularly, if Sedge, Kenny, AMOM, Topid, etc. see this, I would like to get some feedback on the founding of the SC and how exactly it came into being. I wasn't around then and I speak only form what experience I have and have read about.

by **Jack Holland** » Fri Sep 13, 2013 8:56 am

The Mods already have put up a thread similar to this. This will likely be locked
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=218040
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=79106
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=8809

by **SkyDip** » Fri Sep 13, 2013 8:57 am

Jack Holland wrote:The Mods already have put up a thread similar to this. This will likely be locked
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=218040
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=79106
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=8809

Yeah, hence the "working title." And the content isn't even remotely the same, so I doubt it. Next please.

by **Unibot III** » Fri Sep 13, 2013 8:58 am

Of those eight, four (Democratia, Utopia, Nationalist Union, and Republicans) have been refounded and have active Founder nations, rendering those Liberations essentially useless.

Liberations aren't useless -- in fact repeals of liberations on the basis of them being useless are in fact useless repeals. >_>

They serve only to make those regions less secure by taking away a source of defense for them in preparation of their founder CTE'ing.

by **SkyDip** » Fri Sep 13, 2013 8:59 am

Unibot III wrote:
Of those eight, four (Democratia, Utopia, Nationalist Union, and Republicans) have been refounded and have active Founder nations, rendering those Liberations essentially useless.

Liberations aren't useless -- in fact repeals of liberations on the basis of them being useless are in fact useless repeals. >_>

They serve only to make those regions less secure by taking away a source of defense for them in preparation of their founder CTE'ing.

Emphasis mine. It's a matter of perspective, really, and it's this author's perspective that's being written.

by **Unibot III** » Fri Sep 13, 2013 9:09 am

SkyDip wrote:
Unibot III wrote:
Liberations aren't useless -- in fact repeals of liberations on the basis of them being useless are in fact useless repeals. >_>

They serve only to make those regions less secure by taking away a source of defense for them in preparation of their founder CTE'ing.

Emphasis mine. It's a matter of perspective, really, and it's this author's perspective that's being written.

That is a matter of fact, mister.

What is your perspective is whether The Security Council should be concerned with helping regions prepare other regions for the CTE'ing of their founder, given we don't usually do this unless they've needed it in the past after an invasion happened (and passwords got put up)?

Most defenderists would say, sure.. why not keep the badge while it's there anyway? Most raiderists, who want the SC to help regions as little as possible, will try to argue the repeal on the grounds of "cleaning the books" alone.

by **Euroslavia** » Fri Sep 13, 2013 9:10 am

SkyDip wrote:
Unibot III wrote:
Liberations aren't useless -- in fact repeals of liberations on the basis of them being useless are in fact useless repeals. >_>

They serve only to make those regions less secure by taking away a source of defense for them in preparation of their founder CTE'ing.

Emphasis mine. It's a matter of perspective, really, and it's this author's perspective that's being written.

If you're writing a guide for everyone to understand the Security Council, the 'author's perspective' should be removed. Guides should be written as a neutral party.

by **SkyDip** » Fri Sep 13, 2013 9:12 am

Euroslavia wrote:<snip>

Unibot III wrote:<snip>

Indeed - that will be a primary goal early, and I welcome Unibot's input as he's just as prolific (if not more so) in the SC than I. Content revisions I will be working on as well, though I'd like to get a more unbiased opinion than his on his this particular point (sorry, Uni).

by **Unibot III** » Fri Sep 13, 2013 9:20 am

SkyDip wrote:
Euroslavia wrote:<snip>

Unibot III wrote:<snip>

Indeed - that will be a primary goal early, and I welcome Unibot's input as he's just as prolific (if not more so) in the SC than I. Content revisions I will be working on as well, though I'd like to get a more unbiased opinion than his on his this particular point (sorry, Uni).

I don't see what's up to dispute here:

A WA Liberation remains in effect even if a founder CTE's again -- thereby acting as a Preemptive Liberation.

What -is- up for dispute is whether The World Assembly should (1) by default, respect the merits of this preemptive measure, (2) respect the wishes of natives to maintain a WA Liberation given the (controversial) merits of a preemptive measure.

by **SkyDip** » Fri Sep 13, 2013 9:23 am

Unibot III wrote:What -is- up for dispute is whether The World Assembly should (1) by default, respect the merits of this preemptive measure, (2) respect the wishes of natives to maintain a WA Liberation given the (controversial) merits of a preemptive measure.

That sounds like a much better way to put it. If you have a particular edit for that section you'd like to suggest, feel free to post it, otherwise I will try to re-word it myself later.

by **SkyDip** » Fri Sep 13, 2013 10:40 am

@Unibot Also, I think changing the wording of that to something like

rendering those Liberations essentially pointless except as a pre-emptive measure should the Founder nation cease to exist

by **Jack Holland** » Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:09 am

This will be GREALTLY helpful. I am pretty sick of all those WA members who block important proposals just because the proposal is not totally technically perfect. Would recommend you to be Commended but you have already been :clap:

by **Abacathea** » Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:06 pm

Unibot III wrote:Most defenderists would say, sure.. why not keep the badge while it's there anyway? Most raiderists, who want the SC to help regions as little as possible, will try to argue the repeal on the grounds of "cleaning the books" alone.

I'm surprised at you lately Uni, your viewpoints are really starting to clash with my own. Perhaps it's better I never formally signed up to the UDL, there is so much wrong with the above that I don't know where to begin.

@Dip I have to agree with Euroslavia here though, if this is to be a guide to the council it needs to be objective throughout, otherwise it equates to a map which instead of giving factual information about the landscape and topography, tells you where IT thinks you should go.

The New Guide to the Security Council

The New Guide to the Security Council

Chapter 1 - SC Overview/Differences in Proposals

Chapter 2 - Effects of Proposals

Chapter 3 - How R/D Gameplay Affects the SC

Chapter 4 - Rules of SC Proposals

Chapter 5 - Argumentation in SC Writing

Chapter 6 - Gameplay vs. Roleplay in the SC

Who is online