4th rule clarification

[Yelda]

No, both of these instances threatened our communities as we know it -- and neither of them threatened a complete destruction of any community -- the WA would have still existed with the creation of C&Cs, as traditional GA proposals would still be voted on and passed, but a new gameplay element would be allow to persist that would be fundmentally contradicting to the scope and dimension of traditional WA roleplaying.

In this instance, gameplayers will still be allowed to participate in the activities of the World Assembly, but they'll have to sacrifice their culture, scope and dimension to do so.

Your arguments from the C&C controv. thread are mirror reflections of what is being argued here.

No. Our community revolved around the ICness of the WA and the RPed atmosphere of the WA forum. The introduction of the SC nearly destroyed that and its destruction would have meant the total destruction of our community. In fact, the community still hasn't recovered fully, many long-time players left because of it and the ones who are still around now play differently. We're still around, but we've been forced to adapt.

This rule change won't destroy the gameplay community. The things they do away from here, which have nothing to do really with the WA, will go on as before. Their community will remain intact because, unlike our community, it doesn't revolve entirely around the way resolutions are written and the ICness (or lack thereof) of the WA.

So this rule change doesn't threaten the very survival of gameplay in the way that the introduction of the SC threatened us. It's just a minor change in the way c&c's must be worded.

[Naivetry]

It's an analogy in both cases - an image, a form, not the real thing.

This comment makes me think I need to clear something up, because you are evidently confused: I am not functionally retarded. Acting as though I am is probably not a profitable debating tactic.

Again, I believe the things I'm saying. If you think my argument is stupid, just say that. Don't accuse me of trying to insult you just because you find my arguments unconvincing. Attack my argument, not me.

You find it a demeaning comparison; we don't. I can only assume that the reason you find it demeaning is that you don't share our conception of forum communities as important or vital entities; when we use the term, we are not trying to make RL genocide seem insignificant. We are searching for a RL word that adequately expresses the horror of having years of your life, everything you've built with a community you love, obliterated thanks to a mindless and selfish hatred. If you don't understand how we honestly experience that as the worst in-game atrocity that can happen to a person, then I guess it may seem to you like we're using it flippantly. But we aren't.

Once again, you are a rhetorical maestro. Note how everyone who disagrees with you is "selfish", "mindless", and motivated by "hatred". Though I'd note you trip over your own example in the phrase "that can happen to a person": genocide doesn't happen to a person, but to a people.

We were talking about people who commit forum destruction, not about people who just "disagree." The quibble over whether "person" should be singular or plural is irrelevant; clearly whenever "a people" is affected by something, so are individual persons. I chose to emphasize the individual because that's the perspective from which we all experience loss; the destruction is still communal in nature.

That said, you are flatly incorrect in your assessment of your prejudices. (I mean, you're flatly incorrect in general, but in this particular case it's notably the case.) I have a lot of respect for the organicism of online communities - more so than you, seemingly, in that I consider the pre-Security Council World Assembly players' community to have been one too.

So do I, and I have never said otherwise.

For a start, your assertion that you have spent 'years of your life' on an entity that has only existed since 27 May 2009 is a simple lie. The more complex truth is that the majority of gameplayers had zero interest in UN/WA legislative activity - until the new categories are introduced. If, at the absolute worst, this new rule deprives you of the ability to use them, then you have lost, at most, something which you've had for less than a year and didn't seem to particularly want in the first place.

Again, we were talking about the term I used to describe forum destruction. You're the only one who wants to apply it to the SC.

It is basically sick to compare acts that killed and raped millions to requiring some people to play an online game in a different manner.

Quite right, which is why I didn't make that comparison. You're putting words in my mouth and then haranguing me for them, and while I"m sure that drives up popcorn sales, it really is awfully uncomfortable. Could I ask you to stop?

It is perfectly clear that your entire rhetorical agenda is to undermine a style of playing a game so as to pad your own play.

No. It's not like there's only so much respect in this game to go around, and your side has to lose some in order for mine to be respected too. This isn't about tearing you down; it's about being treated as equals.

Moreoever, you argue that:

it's just that in our case, people also get hurt in RL when someone wipes out their entire community history.

I haven't seen a lot of tears shed from the gameplayers over the fact that a number of WA players quit that part of the game, some erasing the community history in an especially elaborate way. Having [violet] break the fourth wall for us erased our community history, as far as I'm concerned: so the fact you claim your side of the game is the only one that could be so affected demonstrated something between apathy or myopia.

You're trying to make this about the SC again when, again, I was discussing forum destruction. Forum destruction means posts are deleted and forums taken offline. You did not experience forum destruction when the SC was created or even when the UN turned into the WA. Forum destruction would mean Jolt deleted all of the WA debates, and [violet] permanently trashed every thread in these subforums.

If you want to talk about how horrible this has been for the WA community, you're welcome to. I sympathize and I understand a little about where you're coming from, because Influence did a very similar thing to the Gameplay community. But again, please, don't attribute to me - and then blame me for - the equations you're making yourself.

And again, I fail to understand why our style of play cannot have RL effects on people. People have fairly clearly left the game because certain resolutions passed, failed, or were repealed.

That's called caring about the game. It's what makes NS such a wonderful and sometimes terrifying place. It's still different from trying to log on to your regional forums one day and finding that someone has hacked them and deleted everything you've ever worked for. Resolutions passing, failing, or being repealed is and should be part of the consequences of the game, in-game. Getting your forums hacked isn't and shouldn't be, which is why for us it's an offense beyond the pale when someone takes in-game hostilities to that OOC level.

You are portraying your side of the game as superior precisely because you are failing to conceed that our side of the game could have similar characteristics to your own: let's have little less Frazer, a little more Evans-Pritchard.

No, I am not portraying my side of the game as superior. I am describing a difference, and you are assigning "superiority" to that difference. I have never said and will never say that our side of the game is "better", but I don't see how you can deny that it's different! As for Frazer/Evans-Pritchard, give me 10 minutes with wikipedia and if I don't get distracted by telegramming I'll get back to you if that comparison needs to be addressed.

If it's bad to erase the history of online communities, then it's bad to force OOC - or "Gameplay IC" - legislative functions on a decidely "IC IC" (what's this all about then) game. If it's bad to force you to recognise IC language, it's bad to force us to recognise OOC language.

Quite right, which is why we worked so hard to have the SC split from the GA so you wouldn't have to - so you could have your space and we could have ours - which, by the way, you were also free to use in the style to which you are accustomed, as some of you have. And now, we're losing the only space we were allowed to have for our own style.

EDIT: "repealing" --> "being repealed"... had a sudden attack of Grammar Nazism, sorry.

[Unibotian WASC Mission]

No, both of these instances threatened our communities as we know it -- and neither of them threatened a complete destruction of any community -- the WA would have still existed with the creation of C&Cs, as traditional GA proposals would still be voted on and passed, but a new gameplay element would be allow to persist that would be fundmentally contradicting to the scope and dimension of traditional WA roleplaying.

In this instance, gameplayers will still be allowed to participate in the activities of the World Assembly, but they'll have to sacrifice their culture, scope and dimension to do so.

Your arguments from the C&C controv. thread are mirror reflections of what is being argued here.

No. Our community revolved around the ICness of the WA and the RPed atmosphere of the WA forum. The introduction of the SC nearly destroyed that and its destruction would have meant the total destruction of our community. In fact, the community still hasn't recovered fully, many long-time players left because of it and the ones who are still around now play differently. We're still around, but we've been forced to adapt.

This rule change won't destroy the gameplay community. The things they do away from here, which have nothing to do really with the WA, will go on as before. Their community will remain intact because, unlike our community, it doesn't revolve entirely around the way resolutions are written and the ICness (or lack thereof) of the WA.

So this rule change doesn't threaten the very survival of gameplay in the way that the introduction of the SC threatened us. It's just a minor change in the way c&c's must be worded.

Not to be git, but...

No, the GA community revolves around writing resolutions and submitting them. What you're describing is culture, and it is a beautiful thing -- and something worth defending. The introduction of C&Cs threatened the 'GA crowd' (for lack of a better term)'s culture and you guys and gals defended your culture fullheartedly. The same situation applies here, as this rule forces gameplayers to leave their culture at the doorstep when drafting an SC resolution. Even though the Security Council was created to accomodate the gameplaying culture!

[Naivetry]

This rule change won't destroy the gameplay community. The things they do away from here, which have nothing to do really with the WA, will go on as before.

That's right; it will go on dying, cut off from the first potential source for new activity that we've ever seen.

So this rule change doesn't threaten the very survival of gameplay in the way that the introduction of the SC threatened us. It's just a minor change in the way c&c's must be worded.

Just like the SC only threatened you because you thought you'd have to use it, this change won't threaten the survival of Gameplay unless we try to use it. If we do use the SC under this paradigm, it will mean lying about what we do and denying the existence and validity of our own way of thinking about and playing this game. We can't do that anymore than you could enter into our "OOC" political world. Which is why we've been telling you that this change will force us to leave, just like it forced the initial separation of the SC and the GA... which now seems to have been an utter waste of everyone's time.

...or what Uni said.

[Oh my Days]

I can't see how this will solve the problem of flaming, not only because a flamer could write an IC flame (CONCERNED that the people of Nation X are a bunch of ...), but also because it is against the rules anyway. If the flamer has no problem submitting something that is warnable for flaming, then what will stop him/her breaking another rule with an OOC flame?

The other complaint about OOC, or Gameplay IC (Nai's definition) resolutions, is that the WA should be entirely RP IC because anything else threatens the culture and history of the GA community, as resolutions won't make sense from the point-of-view of a roleplayed nation. I sympathise entirely with this, and don't think it unreasonable. I think that you could completely ignore the SC, or roleplay not understanding the resolutions, or only acknowledge/understand them when an RPer is condemned, but if none of those are acceptable, then you should really create another thread, and ask for the two organisations to be totally separated, rather than cluttering up this one. Quite simply, if none of the above solutions are good enough, then forcing GPers to write in clunky Gameplay IC (my definition) language won't cut it, it would still be metagaming.

As gameplayers, we could (probably) write just about anything in Gameplay IC (my definition) language, but it would mean that fewer people understand it. If one of us doesn't get what it means, we just check the thread or ask someone, but for the thousands of players who don't visit the forums, there would likely be no explanation and they would be even less likely to be well-informed on the vote. This would further the trend of fewer and fewer people having more and more power in the SC. Look how many of the existing SC authors are senior gameplayers and C&C nominees, it would only get worse as other players would find it harder to express what they want to say. Also, delegates would be more easily manipulated if they didn't understand (I persuaded dozens of delegates to approve a complete lie, if not understanding resolutions was standard fare, then they could be led even more easily).

We could come up with a bank of IC euphemisms to use for OOC events, to aid drafting and increase understanding, but there would still be mass confusion.

There is also the feeling amongst many gameplayers that it would be a betrayal, as we don't speak of our activities like that and it doesn't really represent them.

[Yelda]

The other complaint about OOC, or Gameplay IC (Nai's definition) resolutions, is that the WA should be entirely RP IC because anything else threatens the culture and history of the GA community, as resolutions won't make sense from the point-of-view of a roleplayed nation.

I can't speak for anyone else but that's no longer an issue for me since the chambers have been separated. I don't care if SC resolutions are in RP IC, gameplay IC, OOC, or pig latin. The new rule says they can't be totally OOC, which seems reasonable, but I didn't make the rule.

[Naivetry]

I don't care if SC resolutions are in RP IC, gameplay IC, OOC, or pig latin. The new rule says they can't be totally OOC, which seems reasonable, but I didn't make the rule.

The question is, whose definition of OOC? As should be clear from the bewildering array of terminology being thrown around in this thread, no one really agrees on what should be called OOC in Gameplay. To RPers, everything we do is OOC. Todd and others have picked up on that terminology just because it's easier to understand. I really don't know what Oh My Days thinks counts as Gameplay-IC, but I think we disagree rather fundamentally on that point. To me, anything that talks about what sort of person a player is, rather than what sort of actions they've taken in-game (by which I mean NationStates and everything that exists because of it, including the offsites), is Gameplay-OOC - and that's about it.

[Unibot]

I don't care if SC resolutions are in RP IC, gameplay IC, OOC, or pig latin. The new rule says they can't be totally OOC, which seems reasonable, but I didn't make the rule.

The question is, whose definition of OOC? As should be clear from the bewildering array of terminology being thrown around in this thread, no one really agrees on what should be called OOC in Gameplay. To RPers, everything we do is OOC. Todd and others have picked up on that terminology just because it's easier to understand. I really don't know what Oh My Days thinks counts as Gameplay-IC, but I think we disagree rather fundamentally on that point. To me, anything that talks about what sort of person a player is, rather than what sort of actions they've taken in-game (by which I mean NationStates and everything that exists because of it, including the offsites), is Gameplay-OOC - and that's about it.

My definition of "OOC" is anything that isn't completely fabricated.

[A mean old man]

My definition of "OOC" is anything that isn't completely fabricated.

Oh, shit! There go all your future resolutions, Unibot!

Just teasing.

[Gangal]

I don't care if SC resolutions are in RP IC, gameplay IC, OOC, or pig latin. The new rule says they can't be totally OOC, which seems reasonable, but I didn't make the rule.

The question is, whose definition of OOC? As should be clear from the bewildering array of terminology being thrown around in this thread, no one really agrees on what should be called OOC in Gameplay. To RPers, everything we do is OOC. Todd and others have picked up on that terminology just because it's easier to understand. I really don't know what Oh My Days thinks counts as Gameplay-IC, but I think we disagree rather fundamentally on that point. To me, anything that talks about what sort of person a player is, rather than what sort of actions they've taken in-game (by which I mean NationStates and everything that exists because of it, including the offsites), is Gameplay-OOC - and that's about it.

Here's an example of how I do IC vs OOC in Gameplay:

When Durk was booting nations out of TNP awhile ago, Gangal was one of his victims, and ICly, I was shaking my fist at him and vowing revenge. OOCly, I was chuckling at the whole thing. I've also known of raiders and defenders who got along OOCly, despite being on opposite sides ICly. It's quite possible for gameplayers do do a form of "RP", even though it's not really "nation-based".

[Ardchoille]

Just keep the slanging-match down to a dull roar, and have patience, guys. I'm currently going through a number of posts in detail, but I have RL commitments (hint: the deadline for Australian slackers who haven't filed last year's tax yet) and other mod stuff has also become rather demanding right now.

In the meantime, I repeat, 1, concentrate on how the wording as it exists can be made fit your aims, and 2, this is not about which way of playing the game is more "worthy", "real" or any other adjective, so cut back on the RPers vs Gameplayers abuse. Discussion, yes; abuse, no.

[A mean old man]

...but I have RL commitments (hint: the deadline for Australian slackers who haven't filed last year's tax yet) and other mod stuff has also become rather demanding right now.
...

She's a mod in every existence.

[Naivetry]

Here's an example of how I do IC vs OOC in Gameplay:

When Durk was booting nations out of TNP awhile ago, Gangal was one of his victims, and ICly, I was shaking my fist at him and vowing revenge. OOCly, I was chuckling at the whole thing. I've also known of raiders and defenders who got along OOCly, despite being on opposite sides ICly. It's quite possible for gameplayers do do a form of "RP", even though it's not really "nation-based".

Yep, that's how it works for me, too - and I think for most of us who make the Gameplay IC/OOC distinction.

[Urgench]

Here's an example of how I do IC vs OOC in Gameplay:

When Durk was booting nations out of TNP awhile ago, Gangal was one of his victims, and ICly, I was shaking my fist at him and vowing revenge. OOCly, I was chuckling at the whole thing. I've also known of raiders and defenders who got along OOCly, despite being on opposite sides ICly. It's quite possible for gameplayers do do a form of "RP", even though it's not really "nation-based".

Yep, that's how it works for me, too - and I think for most of us who make the Gameplay IC/OOC distinction.

Well considering that there are C&Cs which mention players not rp'd national governments, or even whatever an NS nation is in this GP form of IC, it seems that the 4th rule is pretty timely no? I mean if even the conventions of the thinly disguised OOC tactical interactions between Gameplayers aren't being respected don't you think that some sort of rule should come in to force to prevent abuse of C&Cs and to ensure that people aren't being condemned and commended on the basis of purely interpersonal likes and dislikes of players?

The virtue of using formulas such as "The government of Nation X" instead of "Player behind Nation X" is that it depersonalises the content of C&Cs, you yourself have explained on many occasions how GPers may or may not share characteristics or views which the NS nation/entity they play may be renowned for. Would you like to be personally condemned for the worst excesses of your nastiest Nation as though those excesses were your personal failings and unpleasant traits? Placing a badge of dishonour, not on your nation, but on you as a human being? How would you feel if another group of players decided to start bullying you by constantly proposing condemnations of you on the basis of malicious charges it amused them to lay upon you?

Ultimately what the 4th rule is doing is asking people to remove "the player behind Nation X" out of the equation, and it seems that had there been no reason to introduce such a rule in the first place then it would not now be in place. The price of using the WA to commend and condemn was always going to be a certain level of vigilance and self policing of the usages to which C&Cs were put combined with the development of conventions for their responsible use, expecting Mods to take on that responsibility wholesale was unrealistic, irresponsible, and frankly somewhat ungracious.

Welcome to using the WA, here are some responsibilities you'll have to remind yourselves of now you're here.

[Naivetry]

Well considering that there are C&Cs which mention players not rp'd national governments, or even whatever an NS nation is in this GP form of IC, it seems that the 4th rule is pretty timely no?

Let's be specific. Which C/C's are you talking about? Because the only one I can think of is Kandarin's, and as much as I admire Kandarin, I thought the wording of his Commendation was a bit ridiculous - no offense, Todd. I consider that wording to be Gameplay-OOC, and needlessly so, since it was dealing with Gameplay-IC (= RP-OOC) activities. Simply "Kandarin" would have been not only more appropriate, but more in line with the way we've always played the game. We don't go around talking about "the player behind" in the ordinary realm of Gameplay, and we don't want to in the SC, either. I don't know who wrote that 'Condemn Govindia' nonsense, but they were about as much in violation of Gameplay standards of IC as they could get.

I mean if even the conventions of the thinly disguised OOC tactical interactions between Gameplayers aren't being respected don't you think that some sort of rule should come in to force to prevent abuse of C&Cs and to ensure that people aren't being condemned and commended on the basis of purely interpersonal likes and dislikes of players?

If this rule at all addressed that problem, I wouldn't be objecting to it as strongly as I am. But just look at what's appeared in the SC since this rule came up: "Condemn Greater Nepal" and "Condemn Kalasparata" are both nothing more than actual interpersonal dislikes expressed using exactly the IC conventions you're claiming would prevent abuse. Don't take my word for it - listen to their authors:

Effectively, this whole proposal is going to allow us to condemn kalasparata for being a complete noob but we have the cover of questionable national activity to proceed with it. Ingenious huh? There is no way that this can fail

Funny, my proposal is very similar...

So pardon me for gesticulating wildly and repeating that the IC standard you all seem to be such proponents of has nothing to do with preventing personal attacks. All it does is make it easier for you to pretend that's not what's happening. Gameplayers are being asked to give up our conventions so you can close your eyes and maintain a charade.

The virtue of using formulas such as "The government of Nation X" instead of "Player behind Nation X" is that it depersonalises the content of C&Cs,

No, no it does not. And again, none of the people objecting to this rule want to talk about the "player behind nation X"; that's as much outside our conventions as it is outside yours.

What C/C's written in Gameplay-IC terms have been taken personally? That is, on whose behalf is this rule being instituted? The only people I see here claiming that there has been OOC flaming in Gameplay-IC C/Cs are people who aren't even involved in Gameplay to begin with.

you yourself have explained on many occasions how GPers may or may not share characteristics or views which the NS nation/entity they play may be renowned for. Would you like to be personally condemned for the worst excesses of your nastiest Nation as though those excesses were your personal failings and unpleasant traits?

If it's talking about me as a person, it's not Gameplay-IC. A properly Gameplay-IC resolution wouldn't bother me at all, because it would be discussing my actions, not my personality. It's the same as the difference between attacking someone's argument and attacking them.

This nation (which happens to have a name that sounds like an individual, "Lady Phedre") wasn't mine, but let me give you an example:

Gameplay-IC:

NOTING Lady Phedre's unlawful seizure of the Delegacy of The East Pacific from its long-standing Delegate, Gnidrah,

DISTURBED by the rhetoric of religious fanaticism and unbridled military imperialism employed by Lady Phedre's new regional government, self-styled "The Empire",

DISMAYED by Lady Phedre's creation of a new "official" forum for the government of The East Pacific, in blatant disregard for its citizens' culture, traditions, and history,

NEWLY AWARE of Lady Phedre's identity as Minineenee of The West Pacific,

SHOCKED by the deception and political machination employed by Lady Phedre in concealing and gaining illicit support for her rise to power,

etc. It's been a while, otherwise I'd come up with something that sounded more compelling. Nothing in that touches the player behind the nation - who is actually a friend of mine OOC - from the perspective of a Gameplay politician.

Gameplay-OOC (same situation):

AWARE of Minineenee's identity as Lady Phedre, the nation which recently seized the Delegacy of The East Pacific,

NOTING that Minineenee has admitted to taking over TEP not only to "increase activity" but just to see if she could,

BELIEVING this act to be inherently selfish and narcissistic,

DISGUSTED that Minineenee chose to conceal what she was doing from her "friends" in TWP...

etc. Can you see the difference? There is no problem at all with a resolution like the first, written Gameplay-IC, from the perspective of someone involved in Gameplay. That sort of reaction is, in fact, what the "villains" among us are shooting for. There is a huge problem with the second, Gameplay-OOC resolution, because it's criticizing Neenee as a person rather than characterizing her actions in the game.

it seems that had there been no reason to introduce such a rule in the first place then it would not now be in place.

We're still waiting to hear what those reasons might be, because the ones given are full of giant holes.

EDIT: Clarifying wording; typos.

[Urgench]

Let's be specific. Which C/C's are you talking about? Because the only one I can think of is Kandarin's, and as much as I admire Kandarin, I thought the wording of his Commendation was a bit ridiculous - no offense, Todd. I consider that wording to be Gameplay-OOC,

It's just OOC, full stop. The mere presence in the list of passed C&Cs of any C&Cs containing OOC references to players encourages other players (of all varieties) to propose OOC C&Cs, a rule making these kinds of OOC references illegal allows there to be no confusion on the matter. And actually Kandarin's commendation and Govindia's for that matter should be stricken and removed or repealed at the very least.

If this rule at all addressed that problem, I wouldn't be objecting to it as strongly as I am. But just look at what's appeared in the SC since this rule came up: "Condemn Greater Nepal" and "Condemn Kalasparata" are both nothing more than actual interpersonal dislikes expressed using exactly the IC conventions you're claiming would prevent abuse. Don't take my word for it - listen to their authors:

So pardon me for gesticulating wildly and repeating that the IC standard you all seem to be such proponents of has nothing to do with preventing personal attacks. All it does is make it easier for you to pretend that's not what's happening. Gameplayers are being asked to give up our conventions so you can close your eyes and maintain a charade.

No one is suggesting that the 4th rule will automatically disappear every nasty personally motivated condemnation over night, the whole principle of C&Cs is riddled with opportunities for that kind of unpleasant nonsense. However it does make it much easier to filter out a lot of obviously illegal C&Cs (something SC players clearly need more help with) and the effort of changing naked personal attacks in to 4th rule compliant C&Cs will very likely discourage a lot of misuse of the SC. If you don't see the difference between a condemnation which obviously sites a player (either explicitly or implicitly) and a condemnation which sites "the Government of nation X" and the actions of said government then it seems you don't really understand that the WA is part of a game. The 4th rule simply reinforces the separation between reality and fantasy.

What C/C's written in Gameplay-IC terms have been taken personally? That is, on whose behalf is this rule being instituted? The only people I see here claiming that there has been OOC flaming in Gameplay C/Cs are people who aren't even involved in Gameplay to begin with.

You're paradigm seems to be that the SC belongs to GPers, and that the only effects of its actions which count are the effects it has on GPers. The WA is a game-wide organisation which encompasses the full range of NS play styles within its membership. The old WA (now GA) rules on how to write resolutions were developed with this reality in mind. The fact that in addressing this issue you seem only to consider how the SC interacts with your own style of play is telling, because it suggests that you and players like you haven't realised that the WA is an in-game entity which has effects on every type of player who plays Nation States. In using the SC you need to realise that beyond the world of GP there are other little worlds in NS which have a stake in how the WA operates. Becoming a WA player requires that you apply the rules which incorporate these considerations into what you want the WA to do. Any number of GA resolutions are deemed instantly illegal because they fail to take in to account the rules which were developed with the consideration that not only one group of players are effected (or indeed that some cannot be effected at all) by a WA resolution.

The fact that some of what the SC does can have effects on even non-WA members only compounds this situation. Do you think, for instance, that GP IC standards of C&C writing should be applicable to RPers? Or do you think that there should be different rules for different kinds of play style? Or do you think that really, to make things simpler, a single standard which acknowledges the nature of what the WA is (a game function of a nation simulation game) should be applied to how C&Cs should be written?

[Naivetry]

Or do you think that there should be different rules for different kinds of play style?

Yes.

Rather, not rules - because the universal rule can be summarized succinctly as "no flaming/ad hominem attacks" no matter what IC/OOC paradigm you're using - but conventions.

That's what's already been happening naturally - look at Greater Tezdrian's Condemnation vs. Todd McCloud's or Imagey Nation's Commendation.

It is precisely because the WA affects all different types of play styles that no single play style should be upheld as the only acceptable format for the SC's resolutions.

[Snefaldia]

Nai,

With regards to the two examples you posted; I have no problem with the first. I think the wording there is vague enough to make both camps happy. I think that's what the rule is shooting for. Replace "Lady Phedre" with "America" or "Germany" and we're talking about a nation. Replace it with "Bill" or "Nancy" and we're talking about a person. The right mix of IC from both camps.

The second is just awful. It breaks the fourth wall, no matter which part of the game you play.

I wouldn't mind if all C&Cs were written like the first. That should be the bare minimum for style.

[Naivetry]

Nai,

With regards to the two examples you posted; I have no problem with the first. I think the wording there is vague enough to make both camps happy. I think that's what the rule is shooting for.

*nods* If that's the case, I will sheepishly admit to some overreaction and go back to sitting in my corner. But that's not what the rule's interpretation - and a lot of this debate - has made it sound like, which is why I think we're all freaking out.

[Urgench]

Or do you think that there should be different rules for different kinds of play style?

Yes.

Rather, not rules - because the universal rule can be summarized succinctly as "no flaming/ad hominem attacks" no matter what IC/OOC paradigm you're using - but conventions.

That's what's already been happening naturally - look at Greater Tezdrian's Condemnation vs. Todd McCloud's or Imagey Nation's Commendation.

It is precisely because the WA affects all different types of play styles that no single play style should be upheld as the only acceptable format for the SC's resolutions.

That's impossible to enforce. It would mean whoever was looking through the list of proposals would need to know who was proposing it, which player was the C or C's object, what kind of player they were and which kind of player the proposer too, whether or not they were using a puppet (perhaps one used to play an in an alternative style) to propose their C or C, which conventions they should be writing their C or C in and what consisted in a contravention of those conventions, indeed understanding of any number of permutations of complication would need to be at this queue glancer's fingertips.

Mind you I agree with Snef's assessment of your posited "correct" method to write a C or C. And strictly speaking the 4th rule demands nothing more than that so far as I can see.


Yours,

[Snefaldia]

Nai,

With regards to the two examples you posted; I have no problem with the first. I think the wording there is vague enough to make both camps happy. I think that's what the rule is shooting for.

*nods* If that's the case, I will sheepishly admit to some overreaction and go back to sitting in my corner. But that's not what the rule's interpretation - and a lot of this debate - has made it sound like, which is why I think we're all freaking out.

Hopefully this will be the interpretation, then!

[Naivetry]

That's impossible to enforce. It would mean whoever was looking through the list of proposals would need to know who was proposing it, which player was the C or C's object, what kind of player they were and which kind of player the proposer too, whether or not they were using a puppet (perhaps one used to play an in an alternative style) to propose their C or C, which conventions they should be writing their C or C in and what consisted in a contravention of those conventions, indeed understanding of any number of permutations of complication would need to be at this queue glancer's fingertips.

Hehe. I don't think it's as hard as you make it sound. If it's talking about something that happened within a nation, it's RP (either national or WA). If it's talking about Delegacies changing or forums being destroyed or regional governments being built up or overthrown, it's Gameplay. In either case, it shouldn't be the IC/OOC style it's written in that counts, but whether it's criticizing/commending actions or persons, with the latter being what's illegal.

*pauses and thinks about her draft of Condemn Aegara*

By my own standards, I think I would have to reword some of that one... bits of it could be interpreted as Gameplay-OOC because that's the level at which the debate was taking place. But that quasi-OOC quality is also why I TG'd Aegara to make sure he wouldn't take it as real OOC criticism if I submitted it... and that sort of double-checking and unspoken understanding between players is what's often going on behind the scenes in Gameplay politics, for those of you who only see the Gameplay-IC side of things we post here.

Mind you I agree with Snef's assessment of your posited "correct" method to write a C or C. And strictly speaking the 4th rule demands nothing more than that so far as I can see.

*nods and crosses fingers*

[Urgench]

But that quasi-OOC quality is also why I TG'd Aegara to make sure he wouldn't take it as real OOC criticism if I submitted it... and that sort of double-checking and unspoken understanding between players is what's often going on behind the scenes in Gameplay politics, for those of you who only see the Gameplay-IC side of things we post here.

And that's exactly the kind of nebulous, impossible-to-descry-on-appearances sort of thing which causes problems from the perspective of making C&Cs congruent with the way the WA functions as a part of the game. Ultimately the 4th rule seems like an attempt to standardise and rectify how GP is expressed in WA language. The WA isn't an offsite forum, its an integral part of the game and its uses should reflect that. Rules for how to write Resolutions, C&Cs, Liberations, whatever they're developed to recognise what the WA is, not how the WA is most likely to be used or by whom.


Fingers also crossed.

[Unibot]

Why aren't we leaving this to the delegates to decide though? I mean, if a condemnation is solely based on a personal conflict that doesn't concern the World Assembly, that sounds like a good reason to vote it down like the current resolution, or repeal it, with "Condemn Ninja Awesome Pirate Whatever.."...

No?

[A mean old man]

Y'know, I can understand condemnations not being OOC, but commendations are a different story altogether. How many OOC commendations turn into all-out troll festivals?