Can I commend a nation for issue writing?

[Kandarin]

I realize that commending a mod or player editor for issue editing is right out, but there's a nation or two that have stood out for their exceptional issue writing. Would it be possible, under the existing rules, to commend them for it?

[Topid]

Shouldn't we condemn people who make problems for nations around the world?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I realize that commending a mod or player editor for issue editing is right out, but there's a nation or two that have stood out for their exceptional issue writing. Would it be possible, under the existing rules, to commend them for it?

Weren't they already "commended" when their issues were accepted? What would be the point to commend them again? Just to reiterate, "No really, it was a very good issue!"?

[Enn]

It strikes me as similar to commending a resolution-author. Surely getting a name hard-coded into the game is enough?

I can't see it as being illegal under the rules, but it strikes me as a bit of ego stroking more than anything else.

[Topid]

1) People who look at the nation page of a nation who has written many issues have no clue this nation did that. Probably many of the nation's region-mates and such don't even know. A commendation is noticeable.

2) [no personal knowledge] People who even answer issues I'm guessing don't always read the author line I'm assuming. It's kinda out of the way... So I'd speculate most nations don't notice the name. (I added this tag because I only go to the Issues page for my nation when I get tired of looking at ISSUES (5) in my peripheral vision. And even then a lot of the time I dismiss them all. I regularly just switch the nation to vacation mode. So I felt it was needed to point out that I actually don't know about answering issues. I suppose it's possible people who answer issued do read every author. Just doesn't seem likely to me.)

3) We're allowed to pat people on the head for almost everything else. Why not issue writers? It'd be hard due to Rule IV, IMO.

4) The game (or more specifically admin team) showed its support and thankfulness when it sent the congratulations telegram and 'hard-coded' the name of the nation into the game. This would be support and thankfulness from the nationstates community. Two totally different entities.

[O5vx]

I agree with the fact that those people need to be commended for their isuess in a more clear manner. This nations must have put a lot into creating this isuess.

[A mean old man]

I can't see any possible way of writing an in-character commendation for an issue writer.

[Oh my Days]

I can't see any possible way of writing an in-character commendation for an issue writer.

I don't know, how about "for accurately summarising the problems of the world and bringing them to the attention of governments across NationStates".

[Todd McCloud]

I can't see any possible way of writing an in-character commendation for an issue writer.

I don't know, how about "for accurately summarising the problems of the world and bringing them to the attention of governments across NationStates".

How does someone reading that go "oh, that's right, he was pretty good with issue writing!"

That statement eludes to nothing. A roleplay nation could easily do that and it can have absolutely nothing to do with issue writing.

[Oh my Days]

I can't see any possible way of writing an in-character commendation for an issue writer.

I don't know, how about "for accurately summarising the problems of the world and bringing them to the attention of governments across NationStates".

How does someone reading that go "oh, that's right, he was pretty good with issue writing!"

That statement eludes to nothing. A roleplay nation could easily do that and it can have absolutely nothing to do with issue writing.

True, I suppose it also implies that said nation acted as a journalist or something similar. Examples could be used to make it clearer, but this is yet another problem with Rule 4.

[Ardchoille]

The WA,

NOTING that @@nation@@ consistently brings major issues of international concern to the attention of individual governments;

FURTHER NOTING that such issues are always presented even-handedly, with the views of all parties clearly represented;

PARTICULARLY IMPRESSED by @@nation@@'s work on

description of issue

description of issue

description of issue

(continue at will);

APPLAUDING the clear and accurate terminology in which @@nation@@ presents these issues to governments;

RECOGNISING the characteristic humour that the international community has come to associate with the contributions of @@nation@@;

CONVINCED that, without the intervention of @@nation@@, such issues would be crowded off many government's agendas, perhaps ignored;

OBSERVING that government decisions on important issues will affect the economy, the body politic and even basic rights;

ADMIRING the discretion @@nation@@ practises about the probable outcomes of such decisions, thus ensuring that issues are dealt with on their own merits;

BELIEVING that such skilled highlighting of so many significant issues brings great benefit to the international community;

COMMENDS @@nation@@.

Bit too long, of course, but it would be hard to pretend you didn't know what it was about. All it really needs, other than "commends", are the "NOTING" and the "PARTICULARLY IMPRESSED'' clauses, the rest are me playing with issues' effects on nation descriptions and the fact that they always have unlooked-for outcomes.

[Todd McCloud]

Unless you can put the issue title or number or something in parenthesis that distinguishes it, I don't believe this is feasible.

[Ardchoille]

Let's pretend that the prolific issues writer @@nation@@ is responsible for all the issues currently confronting one of my puppets. Then (I'm quoting just the "PARTICULARLY" clause, to save space) we get:

PARTICULARLY IMPRESSED by @@nation@@'s work on:

* Keep The Greenbelt Green, Say Protesters
* Buy A Better Baby?
* Bug 'em All, Say Police
* Spare The Rod, Demand Welfare Activists
* Maternity Leave A Must, Say Mothers

That's the 5-cent verstion. The 10-cent version goes:

PARTICULARLY IMPRESSED by @@nation@@'s work in clarifying and publicising the following issues:

* Keep The Greenbelt Green, Say Protesters
* Buy A Better Baby?
* Bug 'em All, Say Police
* Spare The Rod, Demand Welfare Activists
* Maternity Leave A Must, Say Mothers

Or you can have the $1 version, with parentheses:

PARTICULARLY IMPRESSED by @@nation@@'s work in clarifying and publicising the following issues:

*Urban sprawl and the environment (popularised as Keep The Greenbelt Green, Say Protesters)
* Embryo choice for IVF parents (Buy A Better Baby?)
* Civli liberties (Bug 'em All, Say Police)
* Disciplining children (Spare The Rod, Demand Welfare Activists)
* Paid maternity leave (Maternity Leave A Must, Say Mothers)

(The higher prices aren't a reflection of worth or quality, BTW. I charge by the word. )
The thing with NS Issues is that they are, well, issues (matters, situations, conundrums, dilemmas, choices) that governments are faced with. Obviously they can be read as concerning a nation, even if you-the-player views them as stages in the game. NS Issue titles already can be read as headlines in newspapers, radio grabs, TV teasers, whatever; some form of communications that nation have.
In the 10-cent version, why use "clarifying" and "publicising", rather that just "writing"?
Because that's what the player who wrote the issues did.
Anyone can "write" an issue. But to write a good issue, you have to get clear in your own mind what it is you're writing about, and also what the various arguments are.
But even if you do that, your issue may not be used -- maybe because it's too obscure, or there's already one like it.
So a Commendable issue writer must have been responsible for writing ones that have been sent to "nation pages" (or, shortened version, to nations) -- responsible for having them publicised, or popularised, or even "published".

[Unibot]

I guess my biggest question, and the philosophical reason why I have problem with Rule IV, is Ard.. why are we pretending that the author has done something which they didn't? When they wrote their issues they did not write their issues with that role-played set of mind. Commending a person through roleplay for actions that are not roleplayed, is a silly, and demeaning way to go about it. If I want to commend an issue writer, I'm going to commend an issue writer for being great at what he or she did.. because the Security Council can simultaneous exist in several dimensions -- acting not only as a institution for member nations, but also as an institution for players.

When I read your examples, I see a poorly thought out commendation. Lately, the way one designs a proper commendation, is to devise it to represent that nominee. When I condemned Kenny, I researched his roleplay style and his past resolutions -- I followed his style when I wrote his backhand commend. When I condemned Greater Tez, I did the same sort of method. If I was to commend a defender, I'd properly follow the military-style of format which treats players as soldiers -- not nations. This rule-that-is-not-to-be-named is completely detrimental to what has become accepted as a quality resolution in the Security Council -- to make something truly worth commending a great nominee with, you need more than elegant language but something that reflects who that player is. The nominee should be the source of the identity and scope, not a rule.

[Ardchoille]

Tell me, how, exactly, was I supposed to fit the style of the commendation to a writer who doesn't exist? It's an example, cut back to its bare bones, the intro and the "Particularly" clause. Good writers will no doubt rise to their subject.

If I, personally, were trying to commend an Issues writer, I'd certainly do it in a different style, because I write differently. But I'm not; what I was trying to do there was show that an issue writer could be commended IC without the sort of roleplaying I would normally use. It is possible to refer to OOC actions in a way that can be read IC. I'm sure Kandarin, who apparently has subjects in mind, will do it appropriately.

Are you saying that Issues don't bring matters of concern before individual governments? You're surely not suggesting that the author didn't want the work seen? Or that the issues don't have the name of the writer's nation on, or that I've misquoted their actual titles?

Obviously, with a made-up nation name, I couldn't do links. But if, throughout a proposal, a writer links to the nation page, then those who want to read it as a nation can, those who want to read it as the person behind the nation can, and those who want to read it as an account in an online game can.

As for why IC rather than OOC, I've written screeds about that; so have others. You can go check the latest R4 thread, or you can settle for the basic one that it's the fundamental concept on which Max designed the game.

[Unibot]

It is possible to refer to OOC actions in a way that can be read IC. I'm sure Kandarin, who apparently has subjects in mind, will do it appropriately.

Seeing as how it was I who pointed this out to him, I wouldn't know exactly.

And you are still missing the bloody point, Ard, or choosing to ignore it...

It is possible to refer to any OOC action in a way that can be read IC... but is it possible to respect OOC culture by censoring it, and shoehorning it into IC? I say, absolutely not.

Are you saying that Issues don't bring matters of concern before individual governments? You're surely not suggesting that the author didn't want the work seen? Or that the issues don't have the name of the writer's nation on, or that I've misquoted their actual titles?

But what are issues? Issues are matters of individual governments, but they are not newspaper articles, or whatnot, they are a construct that can only be truly understood as a player, as they were written by a player, not a character, nor a nation.

Ultimately it is the player's choices that affect the nation, and it's 'happenings'.

As for why IC rather than OOC, I've written screeds about that; so have others. You can go check the latest R4 thread, or you can settle for the basic one that it's the fundamental concept on which Max designed the game.

Max designed the game, but he also admitted that the players have weaved their own beautiful culture, and their own activities out of the environment he has created. I seriously doubt that when Max created the issues system, all those years ago, he intended authors to be characters that were to be commended though an entity which wasn't even created till last year -- I'm not even sure Max intended for others than himself to write issues. But if I am entirely wrong, let me be the first to Commend Max Barry for addressing to nations the crisis that is Harry Potter.

[Glen-Rhodes]

But what are issues? Issues are matters of individual governments, but they are not newspaper articles, or whatnot, they are a construct that can only be truly understood as a player, as they were written by a player, not a character, nor a nation.

If an issue were to ever be written in a way suggesting that it's part of an online game -- unless it was incredibly hilarious and made Sirocco laugh for hours -- it probably would not make it into NationStates. I think you're being unduly philosophical and, in result, grasping at straws here.

Issues are written as if they are a scene in a movie: your advisors, friends, political rivals, random angry citizen, etc. come to you and try and persuade you -- the leader of a nation -- on what to do. They are written in terms of nations, governments, governmental actions, and whatnot. Issues are written with a "roleplayed set of mind". I don't get how you could say they aren't. There is no other way to write an issue, besides imagining that movie scene.

[Metania]

Additionally, the OOC and IC the rule refers to/will refer to does not so much prohibit "Metania wishes to commend nation XYZ for bringing attention to issue Q" as it prohibits "I, the guy who plays Metania, wants to say that other guy who plays nation XYZ for writing, then submitting to Sirocco to put into the game code the text and PHP that makes up this thing called issue Q."

There's not much shoehorning going on here, if anything it is difficult to shoehorn the idea of an issue into being OOC, as the issues exist in their own gameplay IC continuum--whoever wrote them is merely bringing attention to them, not causing them to exist. Otherwise we'd get hilarious condemns like 'CURSE YOU SIROCCO FOR CAUSING BUMS TO INVADE MY NATION' which would be absolutely ridiculous.

The issue was that OOC/IC was not very well defined earlier, leading to issues with commending people for seemingly OOC things like posting on forums. But due to coincidences with the word 'forums', you can use them, then the OOC people see 'internet forums' and the IC people see 'international forums' and nobody has to chop eachothers arms off over it.

Really, the major thing it bans is something many people, including perhaps some in the 3WB, disliked: "The player behind the nation of ZYX" rhetoric. Isn't that kind of redundant, if you're looking at it from an OOC viewpoint? Nation names = the person to OOC people, so saying it twice would be a bit of an unusual choice to draw the line in the sand.

The line was better drawn over things which are being resolved--commends/condemns over things other than Roleplay-IC. If there is something which has been missed, it should be brought up, but even if you want to commend issues and call them the property of whoever wrote them, you don't have to scrunch your words to do that... it just doesn't make any sense. "PLEASED that Max Barry brought into existence Harry Potter and several people to become angry over its existence"???

[Unibot]

I think you're being unduly philosophical and, in result, grasping at straws here.

And I think you're just being Glen-Rhodes as usual, trying to stir up an argument by twisting my words to delve us into another battle of literal attrition, but I wouldn't call you on that in public either.. but wait, I just did!

Issues are written as if they are a scene in a movie: your advisors, friends, political rivals, random angry citizen, etc. come to you and try and persuade you -- the leader of a nation -- on what to do. They are written in terms of nations, governments, governmental actions, and whatnot. Issues are written with a "roleplayed set of mind". I don't get how you could say they aren't. There is no other way to write an issue, besides imagining that movie scene.

Yes, Glen, issues can be interpreted as in-character propositions.

But no actual nation, and no 'leader of a nation' gets a sheet handed to them with a description header, and four colorful options to choose from -- voters might, but they aren't even given a choice, because even in a democratic nation-state in this game, your democracy doesn't affect the power of the player to choose whatever he/she wants in an issue. And who wrote these options? Another nation? That's absurd -- and why are they edited by a flightless hippo!? And why would reality need editing?

It's clear, that although issues are interpreted in-character, that they can only be understood as they appear to the player in the game -- a construct of the game.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Yes, Glen, issues can be interpreted as in-character propositions.

No, they are in-character propositions. You may pick the option that you, as a person on a computer, like the most. But they are delivered to you-the-character, and they affect Unibot-the-nation.

It's clear, that although issues are interpreted in-character, that they can only be understood as they appear to the player in the game -- a construct of the game.

Well, duh. But that doesn't actually mean anything. Books can only be understood as they appear to a reader. Dungeons & Dragons can only be understood as they appear to a roleplayer. Civil War re-enactments can only be understood as they appear to LARP-ers. It's called fiction. I don't understand why you're getting into the metaphysics and purposefully trying to tear down a fictional construct into stone-cold reality. At some point, you have to just say that an issue addressing a problem in Unibot is just that, because that's what it was intended and designed to be.

[Unibot]

Well, duh. But that doesn't actually mean anything. Books can only be understood as they appear to a reader. Dungeons & Dragons can only be understood as they appear to a roleplayer. Civil War re-enactments can only be understood as they appear to LARP-ers. It's called fiction. I don't understand why you're getting into the metaphysics and purposefully trying to tear down a fictional construct into stone-cold reality.

No, no, I'm not tearing down a wall, the Security Council has never had a fourth wall, our headquarters is a prism. The best way I can explain it is, as the members of the Security Council have commonly accepted, the Security Council exists in both dimensions simultaneously, people in one dimension understand that the book is a book, and conversely, those of the other dimension live the book's narrative ... inhabitants of both of those dimensions are aware of the Security Council in some fashion, and can interact with it, because it is a constant, so to speak.

My first main problem with Rule IV, is that it is trying to accomplish the freedom of accessibility to all cultures, by reducing the dimension of the Security Council, instead of promoting more depth and diversity in resolution writing.

At some point, you have to just say that an issue addressing a problem in Unibot is just that, because that's what it was intended and designed to be.

You misunderstand my position, GR, if you wish to write a proposal that treats issues in such a bizarre manner, so be it, but don't do it because the rules tell you to do it like so, do it because you think it would be most reflective, most respectful and/or most appropriate for your nominee. I certainly know a few issue writers who would be baffled at why anyone would choose to commend them in such an inappropriate manner -- they did not submit their issues as a nation, so they certainly do not wish to be commended for their submissions as a nation.

My second main problem with Rule IV is that it shoddily replaces an element of good resolution writing, an author's discretion and thought, with an automatic decision. Dimensionality was always a vivid part of discussions in drafting threads for commendations and condemnations, and those who deliberated over it, made the better quality resolutions.

[Glen-Rhodes]

... the Security Council has never had a fourth wall, our headquarters is a prism. The best way I can explain it is, as the members of the Security Council have commonly accepted, the Security Council exists in both dimensions simultaneously...

For what it's worth, I only entered into this because of how you were describing issues and bringing them into the fold of this whole Rule 4 battle. I know how Gameplayers view the Security Council. But I did not think that it's fair or appropriate to subject issues to the definitions of OOC/IC that are being used as weapons in the war. I think it's quite clear that issues are written in a roleplayed manner, as if people are coming to a leader and debating an important problem within their nation. If an issue was not written that way, if it ever came to the point where it was in my inbox, I would groan first, and then go on to make it conform to the roleplayed nature of issues.

For all intents and purposes, these people, the leader, the nation and the problems are all real. People are expected to be a national leader, not the-player-behind. (Obviously, I use 'expected' to mean that issues are edited with that expectation in mind, not that there is any right or wrong way to decide on them.) My metaphysics comment was me wondering why we would even suggest that issues themselves have any bearing on real people, the people-behind-the-nation.

Yes, people submit issues ... as people, I guess, which is what you were saying before jeering off into discussing what an issue fundamentally is. I think you're overlooking the first thing Ardchoille posted, though. The 5-cent version. That would fit 100% into how you view 'OOC' commendations. The $1 is slightly less, but only slightly. I don't think there's much of a difference between the two. The $1 isn't treating @@NATION@@ as a real nation on the level you're asserting it is. If you place a person's name there, it makes perfect sense. That's the 'happy medium' Ardchoille's been advocating: writing in such a way that IC and OOC are largely interchangeable. Maybe you would prefer saying that @@NATION@@ submitted a great issue that was added to the game. You can't do that, but what you can do is not fundamentally different.

In some situations, writing an interchangeable C&C is difficult, and I see why you would be angry about having to do it. But it's not always difficult, especially in this case. I think you should ask yourself: am I arguing about the merits of this proposal, or am I using this as a platform for my larger Rule 4 agenda? If it's the latter, I think there are other threads that would be better to do that in. (In this case, I think it's the latter.)

[Unibot]

In some situations, writing an interchangeable C&C is difficult, and I see why you would be angry about having to do it. But it's not always difficult, especially in this case. I think you should ask yourself: am I arguing about the merits of this proposal, or am I using this as a platform for my larger Rule 4 agenda? If it's the latter, I think there are other threads that would be better to do that in. (In this case, I think it's the latter.)

Why is everyone trying to make this about 'difficulty', so far all I've seen in these Rule IV debates is GA based authors and GA based mods criticizing authors in the SC, as if we're angry about Rule IV because it makes it more 'difficult' to write a proposal. Fuck, it makes it easier, it makes it inappropriate, and just plain silly in some cases. Try keeping your head on straight in a dimensionally sweeping institution, there's where you'll find difficultly, and it was a helluva lot more fun, variational and thought-provoking than the cookie-cutter resolutions that are going to come out of this rule.

What this rule IS about is attempting to keep a language out of our happily bilingual institution, under the guise that this will make us more 'accessible' because we'll all be forced to use the same dahm language. To continue the language metaphor -- You can say you're continuing the use of French all you like, but you're still striping the language down to English in the end of the day, and the reason behind it isn't all cookies and jams.

And there is no merits to this proposal, only petty justifications for a larger problem. I'm use to people trying to discredit everything I write as an 'agenda' -- I'm an author of a couple liberations, it comes with the bloody territory, and all I can say is .. hell yes this is a part of a 'grand agenda'! Rule IV is keeping me from playing the game I love, and threatening the future of an institution I adore...until it is abolished, this whole dahm subforum is a soapbox, because it's no good anymore for anything else with an extra wall blocking the sun out.

[Ardchoille]

I think you're being unduly philosophical and, in result, grasping at straws here.

And I think you're just being Glen-Rhodes as usual, trying to stir up an argument by twisting my words to delve us into another battle of literal attrition, but I wouldn't call you on that in public either.. but wait, I just did!

And I think that you'd both better steer away from the personal reflections and move back to the substance of the discussion, capisce?

[Unibot]

I think you're being unduly philosophical and, in result, grasping at straws here.

And I think you're just being Glen-Rhodes as usual, trying to stir up an argument by twisting my words to delve us into another battle of literal attrition, but I wouldn't call you on that in public either.. but wait, I just did!

And I think that you'd both better steer away from the personal reflections and move back to the substance of the discussion, capisce?

I believe we did. Although, I feel the battle of literal attrition approaching, so when it comes, I can scream "I told you so!"