Non-compliance RP in the World Assembly

[Auralia]

For the record, is there a rule against it? Because I'm tired of people asserting that I'm somehow breaking the rules by roleplaying non-compliance:

I feel it is important that new authors are aware that mandatory compliance is not universally accepted, yes.

So for the benefit of the author, yes, there are two or three players who currently advocate that they can ignore what the rules/what previous resolutions say.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Since this is my quote being misconstrued I suppose I have a right to post here.

For the record, is there a rule against it? Because I'm tired of people asserting that I'm somehow breaking the rules by roleplaying non-compliance:

So for the benefit of the author, yes, there are two or three players who currently advocate that they can ignore what the rules/what previous resolutions say.

That isn't what I was arguing. You can RP whatever you want, provided you are not grossly offensive/violate a few other rules that are necessary to keep the site running.

I was referring to

However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will be affected by any resolutions that pass. (Unfortunately you can't obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations.) In other words, it's a hot-bed of political intrigue and double-dealing.

and

The WA is the world's governing body. Membership is voluntary, but all member nations must abide by legislation it passes.

As I stated, I consider your RP to be godmodding, but generally speaking the moderators do not move against roleplay. That does not mean that I will sit by and watch you spread misinformation to new players.

[Frisbeeteria]

I consider your RP to be godmodding, but generally speaking the moderators do not move against roleplay.

This is an accurate summation of the relevant 'rule'. You won't be officially warned, but it's definitely considered Bad Form by most.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I consider your RP to be godmodding, but generally speaking the moderators do not move against roleplay.

This is an accurate summation of the relevant 'rule'. You won't be officially warned, but it's definitely considered Bad Form by most.

Thank you for the confirmation Fris.

[Auralia]

I consider your RP to be godmodding, but generally speaking the moderators do not move against roleplay.

This is an accurate summation of the relevant 'rule'. You won't be officially warned, but it's definitely considered Bad Form by most.

Even in light of the fact that a) non-compliance with international law is common in real-life, and b) the consequences of non-compliance, such as negative impacts on foreign relations, can be roleplayed as well?

[Mallorea and Riva]

This is an accurate summation of the relevant 'rule'. You won't be officially warned, but it's definitely considered Bad Form by most.

Even in light of the fact that a) non-compliance with international law is common in real-life, and b) the consequences of non-compliance, such as negative impacts on foreign relations, can be roleplayed as well?

You don't seem to understand my usage of the term. Simply because you can roleplay something does not mean that you are not GM'ing. I could roleplay that I have a veto power over everything the SC says/does since that can/does happen in real life, and then roleplay out my own implications. But I certainly wouldn't expect anyone to take me seriously, since I am attempting to roleplay control over a NPC, namely the WA and its actions against me.

Essentially you are acting as a godmodder in that you subvert the widely accepted RP conventions of the WA/attempt to take control over the NPC that is the WA, and are expecting others to go along with you.

[The Palentine]

You don't seem to understand my usage of the term. Simply because you can roleplay something does not mean that you are not GM'ing. I could roleplay that I have a veto power over everything the SC says/does since that can/does happen in real life, and then roleplay out my own implications. But I certainly wouldn't expect anyone to take me seriously, since I am attempting to roleplay control over a NPC, namely the WA and its actions against me.

Exactly. I believe the only resolution I rp non-compliance with is the ICC. After it passed I rped my nation's government issuing a statement that it opposed the ICC, did not believe in its legitimacy, and would not allow my citizens to be tried before that body. that is as far as it went, especially since the ICC exists only as some murky body in the Festering Snakepit. I do not believe that other nations have to follow my lead, or even acknowlage my non-compliance.

[Frisbeeteria]

Mallorea and Riva's NPC analogy is quite cogent. You're imposing your version of the rules on a player that can't respond. That's godmodding.

Even in light of the fact that a) non-compliance with international law is common in real-life, and b) the consequences of non-compliance, such as negative impacts on foreign relations, can be roleplayed as well?

The WA is not the UN. Unlike RL international law, WA resolutions have actual consequences to member nations. So you may in fact roleplay non-compliance, but not by saying "these rules don't apply to me", because they do. What you can say is "my nation chooses to break these rules", and accept the RP consequences of your actions. Also, non-compliance roleplays really belong in the Diplomacy forums, not drafting threads.

Furthermore, routinely encouraging other players to ignore a fundamental rule of the game gets really annoying after a while. It's like setting up a thread in II and inviting everyone to nuke your capital, all the while shouting "My anti-nuke shield blocks your nukes! Na na, boo boo, can't hurt me!" We lock those sorts of threads as the spam that they are.

Exactly.

This is not a discussion forum. Let's leave the conversation to the principals, please.

[Vakolic]

When my nation was a member of the WA, it was, as it is now, a slaver.

hen I wanted to rp as a slaver, and the wa argument was braught up against me, my government issued a statement saying that the Greater Vakolicci Haven chose to break the ban on slavery, and that the WA has a write to question the Haven's decision.

Some pretty well-known rpers (ralk, scand etc) followed through with that.

[Auralia]

You don't seem to understand my usage of the term. Simply because you can roleplay something does not mean that you are not GM'ing. I could roleplay that I have a veto power over everything the SC says/does since that can/does happen in real life, and then roleplay out my own implications. But I certainly wouldn't expect anyone to take me seriously, since I am attempting to roleplay control over a NPC, namely the WA and its actions against me.

Mallorea and Riva's NPC analogy is quite cogent. You're imposing your version of the rules on a player that can't respond.

I am not arguing that simply because something can be roleplayed that it is not godmodding. I am arguing that reasonable and realistic roleplay is not godmodding. Non-compliance roleplay that includes acceptance of the consequences of non-compliance is reasonable and realistic, and so cannot be considered godmodding.

I accept that it is bad form to roleplay control over anything other than your own nation, including the WA. But roleplaying non-compliance is not roleplaying control over the WA. It is quite the opposite, actually. Unlike the SC example, I am not exerting any control over the WA. Rather, I am rejecting the notion that the WA exerts an unreasonable and unrealistic level of control over me.

Even in light of the fact that a) non-compliance with international law is common in real-life, and b) the consequences of non-compliance, such as negative impacts on foreign relations, can be roleplayed as well?

The WA is not the UN. Unlike RL international law, WA resolutions have actual consequences to member nations. So you may in fact roleplay non-compliance, but not by saying "these rules don't apply to me", because they do. What you can say is "my nation chooses to break these rules", and accept the RP consequences of your actions.

The WA's mandatory impact on national statistics is not a "rule" that has to be "broken" in order to roleplay non-compliance. It has always been accepted that what happens gameside need not match up with what happens during roleplay. WA nations are free to answer issues in a manner that directly opposes international law, even as they roleplay compliance with all WA resolutions. Most nations are free to ignore national statistics and make up their own during roleplay. For the same reasons, WA nations should be free to roleplay the realistic effects of international law on their nation, including non-compliance and its consequences.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I'll keep responding unless a mod would like me not to/would like to lock down the thread, since it is still my argument/quotes being contested. Just let me know if I should bow out.

You don't seem to understand my usage of the term. Simply because you can roleplay something does not mean that you are not GM'ing. I could roleplay that I have a veto power over everything the SC says/does since that can/does happen in real life, and then roleplay out my own implications. But I certainly wouldn't expect anyone to take me seriously, since I am attempting to roleplay control over a NPC, namely the WA and its actions against me.

Mallorea and Riva's NPC analogy is quite cogent. You're imposing your version of the rules on a player that can't respond.

I am not arguing that simply because something can be roleplayed that it is not godmodding. I am arguing that reasonable and realistic roleplay is not godmodding. Non-compliance roleplay that includes acceptance of the consequences of non-compliance is reasonable and realistic, and so cannot be considered godmodding.

Except that this community does not consider your roleplay to be reasonable. There are a number of reasons for this, one of them being your control over the NPC which is the WA. Which leads us into...

I accept that it is bad form to roleplay control over anything other than your own nation, including the WA. But roleplaying non-compliance is not roleplaying control over the WA. It is quite the opposite, actually. Unlike the SC example, I am not exerting any control over the WA. Rather, I am rejecting the notion that the WA exerts an unreasonable and unrealistic level of control over me.

Yeah. The classic "my nation has a shield which bounces back all nukes" technique. Godmodding. On top of that, you are exerting control over the WA in that you are the one dictating what penalties you are receiving as a result of your own unwillingness to follow WA law. Also godmodding.

The WA is not the UN. Unlike RL international law, WA resolutions have actual consequences to member nations. So you may in fact roleplay non-compliance, but not by saying "these rules don't apply to me", because they do. What you can say is "my nation chooses to break these rules", and accept the RP consequences of your actions.

The WA's mandatory impact on national statistics is not a "rule" that has to be "broken" in order to roleplay non-compliance. It has always been accepted that what happens gameside need not match up with what happens during roleplay. WA nations are free to answer issues in a manner that directly opposes international law, even as they roleplay compliance with all WA resolutions. Most nations are free to ignore national statistics and make up their own during roleplay. For the same reasons, WA nations should be free to roleplay the realistic effects of international law on their nation, including non-compliance and its consequences.

Here you are ignoring the usage of the term "rule", again. You are firstly confusing the gameplay aspect of compliance with the roleplay culture of compliance. As a result you fail to acknowledge this rule, since it is de facto rather than de jure in nature. That is why you aren't getting dinged. Secondly you are ignoring gameplay mechanics for what they are: rules. They are the rules that govern how the game works.

So you are missing the mark on two separate levels.

And I don't get what you are contesting at this point. You know you aren't going to get in trouble, and you already knew that most consider you a godmodder in this respect, as much as you attempt to justify it. What is left to argue?

[Auralia]

Except that this community does not consider your roleplay to be reasonable.

Community standards can be changed. They are not hard and fast rules.

Yeah. The classic "my nation has a shield which bounces back all nukes" technique. Godmodding.

That's not at all the same thing, and you know it. A "shield which bounces back all nukes" is unrealistic and not conducive to good roleplay. Non-compliance is just the opposite.

On top of that, you are exerting control over the WA in that you are the one dictating what penalties you are receiving as a result of your own unwillingness to follow WA law. Also godmodding.

Actually, no. I will accept appropriate consequences to my international relations with other nations. As a general rule, I am allowed to determine what happens to my nation, so long as it is realistic and in the spirit of good roleplay. If I were to claim that I had the ability to send magical gnomes into your nation and re-write your laws, I'm quite certain you would dispute that was the case.

Here you are ignoring the usage of the term "rule", again. You are firstly confusing the gameplay aspect of compliance with the roleplay culture of compliance. As a result you fail to acknowledge this rule, since it is de facto rather than de jure in nature. That is why you aren't getting dinged.

A roleplay convention that is never enforced is not a rule.

Secondly you are ignoring gameplay mechanics for what they are: rules. They are the rules that govern how the game works.

Except they don't govern roleplay, including roleplayed non-compliance.

And I don't get what you are contesting at this point. You know you aren't going to get in trouble, and you already knew that most consider you a godmodder in this respect, as much as you attempt to justify it. What is left to argue?

I was contesting your claim that I am breaking game rules by roleplaying non-compliance, though I suppose you've essentially conceded this point.

[Lamoni]

Auralia, you lost the argument. Stop digging the hole. /notamod