WHY DID MY C&C GET CHUCKED OUT OF THE QUEUE?
Four things will get your proposal killed as soon as it hits the floor:
1. You're commending (or condemning) a moderator for moderating. If you want to commend any of the mods, you can start a thread in Moderation and put up with all the jokes. If you think you've got reason to condemn any of the mods, submit a Getting Help request.
2. You've made a proposal about something that can and should be dealt with in another forum, probably Moderation: "The WA should condemn Sparky because he flamed me today in my thread about my embassy because I said his guards couldn't carry nuclear-powered pistols" is O-U-T.
3. Your proposal doesn't DO anything, or does too much. For example:
(i) You didn’t say what action you wanted the WA to take. You should clearly say in the text of your resolution, not just in the panels at the top, “The World Assembly condemns (or commends) the nation (or region) @@NAME@@.”
2. You've made a proposal about something that can and should be dealt with in another forum, probably Moderation: "The WA should condemn Sparky because he flamed me today in my thread about my embassy because I said his guards couldn't carry nuclear-powered pistols" is O-U-T.
3. Your proposal doesn't DO anything, or does too much. For example:
(i) You didn’t say what action you wanted the WA to take. You should clearly say in the text of your resolution, not just in the panels at the top, “The World Assembly condemns (or commends) the nation (or region) @@NAME@@.”
(ii) This applies to repeals, too. You must say, "The WA repeals @@Name of Resolution@@" in the text. Note also that repeals must be submitted using the "Repeal" form.
(iii) You asked the WA to perform an extra action, eg, “Condemns @@NAME@@ and sows their fields with salt”.
4. Your proposal cannot be read as submitted by a Nation, or as targeting a Nation or Region, because it does not use nation-simulation language (“SC IC”).
For example, it:
(a) Refers directly to a player, rather than to the NationStates nation itself.
(b) Refers to the game, or events or actions in it, as a game or part of a game.
(c) Reads as if you're speaking for you-the-player (eg, "I think", "I feel", "I believe". Try "my nation feels", "my government believes", etc.)
(d) References the real world, in the sense of the place that is not the NationStates community.
For example, it:
(a) Refers directly to a player, rather than to the NationStates nation itself.
(b) Refers to the game, or events or actions in it, as a game or part of a game.
(c) Reads as if you're speaking for you-the-player (eg, "I think", "I feel", "I believe". Try "my nation feels", "my government believes", etc.)
(d) References the real world, in the sense of the place that is not the NationStates community.
Remember that C&Cs are meant to be NationStates nations commenting on those actions of other NationStates nations or regions that are significant to the entire NS Multiverse.
Proposals should not refer to the personal characteristics of the player behind the nation ("good roleplayer" "always rude" "bad speller") but to NationStates actions.
Mostly, C&Cs don't get chucked out, they fall out because their writers couldn't convince enough delegates to give them enough approvals to bring them to quorum.
They're a picky lot, the delegates. Here are some possible reasons why they've ignored your proposal:
Reason:
1. You didn’t give enough reasons for the SC to make an informed decision.
2. Your reasons weren’t good enough. (For example, “... because he put a note on my Regional Message Board”.)
2. Your reasons weren’t good enough. (For example, “... because he put a note on my Regional Message Board”.)
Your reason is supposed to be an action that will cause “shock and dismay” to the international community (condemn) or “recognize outstanding contribution by a nation or region.” (commend).
3. Your reason was wrong. Nations know what other nations do. You probably won't get away with an untrue proposal. The nation or region didn’t do what you said they did You’re condemning an action that’s legal under NS rules.
If you find you've made a mistake in your proposal, please inform mods via a Moderation post or a Getting Help request. The mods cannot, will not and should not check every proposal for accuracy of information.
- (i} You may condemn the way a nation or region performed a legal action.
(ii) If the illegal action should be dealt with in Moderation, don’t make a C&C about it.
If the nation or region has already been condemned or commended for a specific action or set of actions, don't repeat the proposal for that nation or region. Once again, nations will see what you did there, and vote accordingly.
You may condemn or commend a different nation or region for the same or similar action or set of actions.
You may condemn or commend a different nation or region for the same or similar action or set of actions.
Contradiction:
A nation or region should not be condemned AND commended for the same action or set of actions. A little bird from another nation will tell on you if you try.
Ideology:
Proposals that simply condemn/commend nations/regions because of their (Communist, Nazi, Christian, Atheist, homophobic, homophilic, sexist, racist, whatever) views will be deleted. As the SC has voted for, and decided not to repeal, a proposal based on ideology alone, this is now in abeyance. Note that including in your proposal a solely Real World ideology without reference to NationStates has been illegal since the introduction of Rule 4.
Since you need other nations' votes, you'll have more luck persuading them if you show (a) what the nation’s ideology is, in NS terms –- ie, prove that they hold it; (b) what actions they took in NationStates under the influence of that ideology that deserve to be condemned or commended.
Since you need other nations' votes, you'll have more luck persuading them if you show (a) what the nation’s ideology is, in NS terms –- ie, prove that they hold it; (b) what actions they took in NationStates under the influence of that ideology that deserve to be condemned or commended.
Links are allowed. However, since many delegates may not wish to follow links in their first reading of a proposal, it is more helpful to describe the resolution briefly, eg, "ignored [resolution link]international opposition to slavery[/link]", with the resolution reference being used to show there is some international opposition to slavery.
Remember, too, that not all nations are WA members, so you should avoid saying that they "broke" a law that doesn't apply to them.
Confusion:
1. GA proposals create international laws for imaginary citizens in imaginary nations throughout the NS multiverse. SC resolutions use the game mechanism to perform actions on individual nations or regions within the NS community. If you confuse these, you will confuse voting delegates, and then it's goodbye to your proposal's approvals.
2. Your proposal will be deleted if mods consider that it mixes IC (however described) and OOC (however described).2. Your proposal will probably die if delegates can't quite figure out who or what you're writing about.
3. C&Cs that reference the real world, in the sense of the place that is not the NationStates community, may be deleted. depending on circumstance. Now covered under Rule 4.
A year of allowing "player behind" proposals has made it clear that, though the existing successful resolutions in this format were genuine, Condemnations and Commendations using fully Out of Character (OOC) phrasing are too often misused, trivial, or refer to the player's personal characteristics. Commendations and Condemnations must therefore be written in the same fashion as the Liberation category, referring to the actions of a NationStates nation or region in the NationStates world, and must be described in appropriate terms.
If players find this hard to do, they should start a Drafting thread in the SC forum seeking the help of other players.
This does not invalidate resolutions passed under the previous ruling. They were legal when they were passed, and they now confer a unique distinction on their holders.
Self-commending:
If you commend yourself, the risk is that people will have three days to point and laugh while your proposal sits there failing to gather approvals. But if you think that you can do it gracefully, nobody's stopping you. See further discussion here.
Repeals: A REPEAL of a C&C should address the contents of the C&C in question. However, a repeal that consists of nothing but a negative of the original -- eg, Repeal Commend X because he is NOT a good guy -- may be deleted on the grounds that the SC discussed this in the original debate.
A Commendation or Condemnation is an expression of opinion by the WA. Repealing it is saying that the WA has changed its mind. You should therefore give reasons for the change of mind. These may include matters that have come to light or changed since the original resolution. See further discussion here.
__________________________________________________________
As you can see, this ruleset has been amended after discussions with the admins to remove most references to "mods will delete" and place the responsibility more firmly on the delegates to remove, or not give, their approvals.
The emphasis is on the SC becoming what the delegates make it. If you don't like misspelled proposals, or proposals condemning raiders just because they're raiders, or proposals commending your region's bitterest enemies, or the way a group of nations has got together to push a particular line, it's up to you to do something about it. And the "something" is not "call the mods".
Comments on, or suggested amendments to, this ruleset should be made here.
(EDITED 26/07/09: accuracy in proposals -- Ard. 18/08/09: delegates' responsibility -- Ard. 28/12/09: links are okay if they're NS links -- Ard. Put an active clause in everything, even repeals. -- Ard, 29/03/10. Moved "not doing anything" to the kill zone -- Ard. 23/04/10: "Player behind" ruling withdrawn -- Ard. Wording re "player behind" amended. Expanded proposal references re non-WA nations 29/05/10 -- Ard. Self commendation added 30/05/10 -- Ard. "directly" added, 09/06/10 -- Ard. 4(b) added 11/06/10 -- Ard. 14/07/10: Fixed 4(c) because Hack is a grammar Nazi -- Ard. latest revision of R4 23/07/10 -- Ard. Repeals discussion added and Ideology amended, 19/10/10 -- Ard. Rephrased RW ideology, 20/11/10 -- Sedge. Added Rule 4 RW references, removed point 3 of 'Confusion', Ideology amended, 06/12/10 -- Sedge.