SC Rules discussion

by **Sacarap** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 5:57 pm

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:"Gameplay" is also a Rule 4 violation. Basically anything that identifies NationStates as a game is against the rules.

Though you could have asked this in the proposal thread.

Okay

Thought it was closed :\

by **The Great Destruction** » Tue Aug 04, 2015 9:32 pm

I am sorry if this was asked in the last 14 pages.

May a nation that is no longer in existence be the target of a Commendation/Condemnation? Would this apply only to Former nations, or would this also apply to Acient nations. And if Ancient nations are targetable, how do they get distinguished from a new nation using the name involved. Also what happens if an already CorC'ed nation becomes ancient and a new nation is created with the same name. Does it inherit the badge even if it was an accident or chance and not related to the previously named region?

by **Bears Armed** » Wed Aug 05, 2015 2:40 am

The Great Destruction wrote:I am sorry if this was asked in the last 14 pages.

May a nation that is no longer in existence be the target of a Commendation/Condemnation? Would this apply only to Former nations, or would this also apply to Acient nations. And if Ancient nations are targetable, how do they get distinguished from a new nation using the name involved.

No. The game's coding simply won't accept Commendation/Condemnation proposals whose specified targets aren't in existence when they're submitted.

Also what happens if an already CorC'ed nation becomes ancient and a new nation is created with the same name. Does it inherit the badge even if it was an accident or chance and not related to the previously named region?

I'm fairly sure that having a Commendation/Condemnation still on the books would block the nation's name from reuse, even if it wasn't on the exempt list for some other reason (such as population level, which seems one of the likelier conditions to apply in these cases, for example) anyway.

by **Sedgistan** » Wed Aug 05, 2015 3:30 am

Bears Armed is right in what he says.

That said, if there's a compelling argument for being allowed to Commend/Condemn CTEd nations, we'll certainly listen to it.

by **The Great Destruction** » Wed Aug 05, 2015 6:41 am

That was my intent Sedge. Let me investigate further and I'll get back to you. Is this the proper forum or should I start a new thread if it becomes eminent?

Thank you too Bears

by **Sedgistan** » Wed Aug 05, 2015 1:49 pm

Technical would be the best place, since it'd require coding changes - but if you do post something, do feel free to link it from here, so those following this discussion know to check.

by **The Great Destruction** » Mon Aug 10, 2015 8:32 pm

I have submitted an inquiry into whether we can infact change the game mechanic to allow targeting of CTEed nations/regions with SC resolution.

It can be found here in the technical forum.

However the consequences to the SC rules for submitting resolutions, which may depend on exactly how this change, if implemented, works and has yet to be thoroughly discussed as well. I suggest we forgo any assumtions until we find out if this is even considered by the powers that be.

by **Crazy girl** » Tue Sep 15, 2015 11:33 am

Todd posted a thread in Technical on some proposed changes to the SC: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=353832

by **We Are Not the NSA** » Wed Oct 14, 2015 6:27 am

Hello. I'd like for a moderator to clarify something for me, specifically about SC rule 4 section b. So, this rule makes it illegal to refer to the player behind a nation by saying "he/she did this" or "her/his nation did that" and so on. In the past week or two, I've seen two proposals that include a clause refering to a nation's leader. A specific instance of this is this clause from the recently submitted Condemn Melchandious

1. Acknowledging that the queen of Melchandious could be a great leader to her people,

So my question is: is the clause legal? I'm a bit torn on it, because it feels illegal, simply because of the gendered pronoun, but I can see it as being legal because it is referring to the nation's leader. I can't tell what the SC policy is regarding the use of national leaders, and would really appreciate a moderator's opinion. Thank you.

by **Sedgistan** » Wed Oct 14, 2015 6:41 am

If you're clearly referring to an RPed character within a nation, it's fine to use personal pronouns for them.

by **We Are Not the NSA** » Wed Oct 14, 2015 9:18 am

Sedgistan wrote:If you're clearly referring to an RPed character within a nation, it's fine to use personal pronouns for them.

Alright, thank you Sedge.

by **Gribbland** » Thu Nov 05, 2015 8:35 pm

How do I approve of a proposal?

by **Phydios** » Thu Nov 05, 2015 8:50 pm

Gribbland wrote:How do I approve of a proposal?

You must be a World Assembly delegate. In order to be a delegate, you must be in the World Assembly and have other people, who are also in the WA, endorse you. You must have more endorsements than any other member of your region in order to become delegate. Read the WA section of the FAQ.

by **Sedgistan** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 2:24 am

Rule 4 update - "feeder" and "sinker"

After discussion amongst the team, we've decided that the terms "feeder" and sinker" are now compliant with Rule 4, and as such can be used within Security Council proposals.

Rule 4 is intended to ensure that Security Council proposals make sense in terms of the NS world. While "feeder" and "sinker" would not make sense as real-world terms, they do within NationStates. This is due to the nature of the game, which sees nations created in a specific set of regions, restored in another set of regions, and ejected to a specific region - it is understandable that within the NationStates world, unique terms would exist to refer to these regions.

We would like to stress that Rule 4 remains in place, as before, to ensure that Security Council proposals make sense within the NationStates world. The change to the legality of "feeder" and "sinker" within proposals is a result of a re-evaluation by the team of how they fit in with the spirit and intent of Rule 4.

We've written the following rubric to help determine whether terms fit within Rule 4 or not:

1. Is the term something that could be applied to real-world nations. If yes, then fine. If no, see #2.
2. Is the term something that could be applied to the NationStates world? If yes, see point 3, if no, then what on earth are you writing about?
3. Is the term referring to NationStates as a game, or to the people behind the nations? If yes, it's not acceptable. If no, it's fine.

This allows language used to describe the unique aspects NationStates world to be used within proposals - not just the gameplay aspects, but also one from roleplay and other communities.

If you have any questions as a result of this ruling, please feel free to ask them in this thread.

by **Unibot III** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 2:58 am

I officially declare the 3WB fight against the WA to be over.

*errupts into singing*

So here it is,
Merry Christmas.
Everybody's having fun!
Look to the future now
It's only just begun!!!

I'm just glad I didn't have to create an interregional treaty called "the Feeders" to circumvent the rule using precedent from one of Ard's dusty old rulings on organizational names that otherwise would violate Rule IV. You would have had to create Rule V to stop me.

by **The Blaatschapen** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 9:10 am

Unibot III wrote:I officially declare the 3WB fight against the WA to be over.

*errupts into singing*

So here it is,
Merry Christmas.
Everybody's having fun!
Look to the future now
It's only just begun!!!

I'm just glad I didn't have to create an interregional treaty called "the Feeders" to circumvent the rule using precedent from one of Ard's dusty old rulings on organizational names that otherwise would violate Rule IV. You would have had to create Rule V to stop me.

Considering that this feeder/sinker illegality was in place for years, you took your sweet time to potentially circumvent it

by **Unibot III** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 1:21 pm

The Blaatschapen wrote:
Unibot III wrote:I officially declare the 3WB fight against the WA to be over.

*errupts into singing*

So here it is,
Merry Christmas.
Everybody's having fun!
Look to the future now
It's only just begun!!!

I'm just glad I didn't have to create an interregional treaty called "the Feeders" to circumvent the rule using precedent from one of Ard's dusty old rulings on organizational names that otherwise would violate Rule IV. You would have had to create Rule V to stop me.

Considering that this feeder/sinker illegality was in place for years, you took your sweet time to potentially circumvent it

I had that idea for a loophole years ago but was afraid of being made DOS if I tried. Bear in mind I challenged this feeder/sinker ruling so many times, I was told I'd get a warning if I challenged it again. I think I had made like five official challenges with various appeals.

by **Unibot III** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 1:29 pm

Also, almost every suggestion I've made for the Welcome Text, FAQ updates, Game language of any kind for like three years has featured "feeder" and "sinker" deliberately shoehorned in. Several stuff in the game, like the official "You are no longer obligated to comply..." WA telegram uses my suggested wording.... so it's surprising I wasn't successful at getting Feeder / Sinker snuck in somewhere after all these years! :twisted:

by **Pierconium** » Thu Apr 07, 2016 12:27 pm

Can we add a rule stipulating at least minimal correct spelling requirements?

by **Crazy girl** » Thu Apr 07, 2016 1:15 pm

I'd like to leave that up to the delegates and voters

by **An Enforcer** » Sun Apr 10, 2016 5:31 am

Why is this allowed: "Knowing that the raiders of DEN and many other raiding regions consider condemnations medals of honor rather than any sort of punishment for their actions"

by **Crazy girl** » Sun Apr 10, 2016 9:23 am

Why not?

by **An Enforcer** » Sun Apr 10, 2016 10:45 am

For violating Rule 4 by referring to condemnations/commendations as badges in a game-playing context. Sure, it can be seen as a figure of speech but we all know the badge of honor in question is condemn.png

by **WikiPlay** » Wed Jul 13, 2016 10:40 am

Pierconium wrote:Can we add a rule stipulating at least minimal correct spelling requirements?

I do agree with this positive proposal: I did interviews with close friends and their first impression was "Who did write such a brilliant English description of your nation?" was the most common reaction.

This is one of the best reasons to play nationstates, if there are errors in proposals then this is not a promo for nationstates.net, instead the amount of players will decrease if there are too much errors.

I wonder why there is no spell checker on nationstates.net: this still doesn’t work in certain fields; browser correction is enabled on the majority of other sites. In would implement this innovation to gain more unique players.

If you are a teacher then there is the possibility to use this site to learn more about: politics, English and it’s positive to promote the books of Max Barry.

The only thing what they have to do are efforts!

by **Crazy girl** » Wed Jul 13, 2016 12:46 pm

Regarding the first bit of your post: not happening. It is up to delegates and other WA members to decide if the spelling and/or grammar in a proposal is too atrocious to let it pass.

As for the technical suggestion...that is where it should be. In Technical.

SC Rules discussion

i.e. a former nation

CTEed nations/regions as SC Resolution targets

Valid argument

Who is online