Rule 4, formerly 'Split from Commend "A Mean Old Man".'

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I don't know, it just seems like the right thing to do. When the mods turned me down on several ideas, and told me they weren't going to happen, I contacted Max and had a good long conversation on the possibilities for NationStates. Several months later we had the Security Council and several other substantial changes.

I'm not saying I am an authority on if the rule will stay or go, but I do have an authority as an individual on if the rule should stay or go.

Yeah, well, claiming to be on a first-name basis with Max doesn't lend anyone any authority on this site, moral or otherwise. He doesn't seem to be returning your calls now, though: does that give you any indication as to his willingness to get involved?

{On another note, ask how many MaxChats I've attended, and how many times Max has responded to my comments. The answer is none. But if it had been "All of them, and not only did he reply to all my comments and immediately agree to all my suggestions, but he called me the greatest player in the history of the universe," would that make my say-so any more or less authoritative than any other player's?)

[Unibot]

I don't know, it just seems like the right thing to do. When the mods turned me down on several ideas, and told me they weren't going to happen, I contacted Max and had a good long conversation on the possibilities for NationStates. Several months later we had the Security Council and several other substantial changes.

I'm not saying I am an authority on if the rule will stay or go, but I do have an authority as an individual on if the rule should stay or go.

Yeah, well, claiming to be on a first-name basis with Max doesn't lend anyone any authority on this site, moral or otherwise. He doesn't seem to be returning your calls now, though: does that give you any indication as to his willingness to get involved?

Err.. doesn't every just call him Max? Also, I sent the email last night, so I'll get back to you on this chat, 'cause it took him several days to reply last time around.

{On another note, ask how many MaxChats I've attended, and how many times Max has responded to my comments. The answer is none. But if it had been "All of them, and not only did he reply to all my comments and immediately agree to all my suggestions, but he called me the greatest player in the history of the universe," would that make my say-so any more or less authoritative than any other player's?)

I could be wrong but I think Mr. Max *insert middle name here* Barry cares about the players on the site who have dedicated quite a bit, and if he sees the misery the rule has cost to those who use the Security Council, maybe he'll reconsider his decision (because I have a sneaking suspicion that Rule IV was an Admin idea), or maybe not? There is nothing authoritarian about that.

But I do think that the Security Council regulars deserve to know who cost them the game they love and why.

[Urgench]

If you mean sorted out by removed entirely, that isn't happening.

Why can't you ever do the same? It's really not up to you to demand direct intervention from Max himself (something I have never, ever seen in five years playing this game).

I don't know, it just seems like the right thing to do. When the mods turned me down on several ideas, and told me they weren't going to happen, I contacted Max and had a good long conversation on the possibilities for NationStates. Several months later we had the Security Council and several other substantial changes.

I'm not saying I am an authority on if the rule will stay or go, but I do have an authority as an individual on if the rule should stay or go.

No you don't Unibot. It's as simple as that. We all use this game at the discretion of the Moderators and Administrators, they in turn have been given this discretion by the owner/operator of this game. The rules are not inherently negotiable, even if some of them are introduced with room for discussion and adaptation, since even this is entirely at the discretion of the Mods and Admins.

Frankly you could have a hot line to god, it doesn't much change the fact that you use this game entirely at the discretion of those who have the discretionary power to allow you to use it under whatever rules and regulations they see fit to impose upon your ability to use it.

It's simple. This is in no way a democracy nor does it share any characteristics of any kind with one, nor is it a community, nor does people power have any writ or influence beyond that which the Mods and Admins choose to allow it to have.

I find your flagrant abuse of Max's name and authority faintly unpleasant, it smells of self aggrandisement and an attempt to clothe yourself in the mantle of the game creator, thereby lending spurious weight to what you are demanding.

[Unibot]

I dunno, he doesn't seem like a guy in his blogs that likes to be referred to as Mr. Barry. But I'll keep that in mind in the future while I'm clothing myself in the mantle of said game creator, as God-Almighty. Let the Evangelical angels hark Unibot's name, alas, you guys are even more critical as vultures than usual. Keep on pecking, there is barely anything left as it is.

I wouldn't turn to him unless I didn't think there isn't much left to turn to. I just want a reply, I think we all just want a reply on who and why. I think you guys and gals in the World Assembly would have wanted the same thing had the implementation of C&Cs not been known, and no compromises were available.

[Urgench]

I dunno, he doesn't seem like a guy in his blogs that likes to be referred to as Mr. Barry. But I'll keep that in mind in the future while I'm clothing myself in the mantle of said game creator, as God-Almighty. Let the Evangelical angels hark Unibot's name, alas, you guys are even more critical as vultures than usual. Keep on pecking, there is barely anything left as it is.

I wouldn't turn to him unless I didn't think there isn't much left to turn to. I just want a reply, I think we all just want a reply on who and why. I think you guys and gals in the World Assembly would have wanted the same thing had the implementation of C&Cs not been known, and no compromises were available.

Actually no compromises were available. And we WAers still didn't resort to these tactics.

[Unibot]

I dunno, he doesn't seem like a guy in his blogs that likes to be referred to as Mr. Barry. But I'll keep that in mind in the future while I'm clothing myself in the mantle of said game creator, as God-Almighty. Let the Evangelical angels hark Unibot's name, alas, you guys are even more critical as vultures than usual. Keep on pecking, there is barely anything left as it is.

I wouldn't turn to him unless I didn't think there isn't much left to turn to. I just want a reply, I think we all just want a reply on who and why. I think you guys and gals in the World Assembly would have wanted the same thing had the implementation of C&Cs not been known, and no compromises were available.

Actually no compromises were available. And we WAers still didn't resort to these tactics.

Oh, for friggs sake, Urgench, if the Security Council regulars were offered the deal that the place would have to be renamed in exchange for the abolishment of Rule IV, I wouldn't care if they renamed the place, "International Council of Dickwaving Morons and Co. (ICDM)". The name of a community isn't as important as the people and the culture of the community in it, because a name is just a name. I hope that doesn't seem too non-compassionate or harsh.

[Urgench]

I dunno, he doesn't seem like a guy in his blogs that likes to be referred to as Mr. Barry. But I'll keep that in mind in the future while I'm clothing myself in the mantle of said game creator, as God-Almighty. Let the Evangelical angels hark Unibot's name, alas, you guys are even more critical as vultures than usual. Keep on pecking, there is barely anything left as it is.

I wouldn't turn to him unless I didn't think there isn't much left to turn to. I just want a reply, I think we all just want a reply on who and why. I think you guys and gals in the World Assembly would have wanted the same thing had the implementation of C&Cs not been known, and no compromises were available.

Actually no compromises were available. And we WAers still didn't resort to these tactics.

Oh, for friggs sake, Urgench, if the Security Council regulars were offered the deal that the place would have to be renamed in exchange for the abolishment of Rule IV, I wouldn't care if they renamed the place, "International Council of Dickwaving Morons and Co. (ICDM)". The name of a community isn't as important as the people and the culture of the community in it, because a name is just a name. I hope that doesn't seem too non-compassionate or harsh.

This isn't about names Unibot. It's about what the WA is and how it relates to the rest of the game. If you want an ICDM then by all means found one and recreate this freefrom culture you prefer. I personally don't see any tremendous conflict with asking for some very minor language changes which will improve how the SC's resolutions read in relation to what the SC is supposed to be, and the continued development of a unique SC resolutions writing culture.

The GA had lots of rules about wording imposed upon it ( for very good reasons ) the culture continued to develop and does to this day, there's no reason that cannot be the same for the SC having specific wording regulations for its resolutions.

You advocate totally freeform resolution writing, that's not the same as defending the culture of the SC Unibot, that's a personal view of how the SC should operate, you confuse the two too often.

[Ballotonia]

But if the players have no voice in those regards, then the moderation had no right to oppress the players of the World Assembly, who actually use the system they moderate, and can be harmed by moderation.

The moderators have repeatedly invited player input to make the rule more user-friendly, but you seem to have ignored that invitation.

Last edit of the post containing Rule 4 has been June 11. I've tried explaining what problems I have with Rule 4, but I see no change to the offending part of Rule 4 in wording. What I have seen is a mod explaining in excrutiating detail how Rule 4 is being interpreted by that mod at this moment in time, and basically saying we should just accept it.

So, I support the 3WB. And those who know my resolve on stuff like that know I'd have no problem whatsoever to still be voting down every single proposal 10 years from now (I've been playing this game for 7+ years). In fact, I'm in favor of simply extending 3WB to all proposals in both GA and SC just to make sure it has an impact (which it now lacks).

Ballotonia

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Last edit of the post containing Rule 4 has been June 11. I've tried explaining what problems I have with Rule 4, but I see no change to the offending part of Rule 4 in wording. What I have seen is a mod explaining in excrutiating detail how Rule 4 is being interpreted by that mod at this moment in time, and basically saying we should just accept it.

So, you're basing your claim that the mods won't listen on a perceived sluggishness to update a sticky, and your apparent inability to comprehend basic English? Ard has stated right here that player input on R4 is welcome, and that there are several threads open where you can offer it. Now the question remains whether you're actually interested in working with the mods to make the rule more player-friendly, or if you're instead content on ignoring mod solicitations and continuing to spout puerile nonsense about GA tyranny and genocide?

So, I support the 3WB. And those who know my resolve on stuff like that know I'd have no problem whatsoever to still be voting down every single proposal 10 years from now (I've been playing this game for 7+ years). In fact, I'm in favor of simply extending 3WB to all proposals in both GA and SC just to make sure it has an impact (which it now lacks).

Not from not sabotaging enough WA votes, I assure you. Moderation has made clear they do not care how many resolutions fail; the only way they are willing to bend on this is if players stop pretending they're suicide martyrs for a lost cause, and start engaging them on calibrating the new rule.

Ballotonia

Dude*, I already know who you are. The forums sign your posts for you.

* or "Dudette"

[Unibot]

You advocate totally freeform resolution writing, that's not the same as defending the culture of the SC Unibot, that's a personal view of how the SC should operate, you confuse the two too often.

Generally speaking, players in the Security Council need the freedom to write C&Cs that respect and be appropriate to their nominees. When the Security Council gains further sources of legislation, like the Liberation category, I suspect they will demand much more regulatory attention than C&Cs require.

[The divided]

The debate over invaders vs defenders has finally ended because defenders now controls invaders

[Krioval]

You advocate totally freeform resolution writing, that's not the same as defending the culture of the SC Unibot, that's a personal view of how the SC should operate, you confuse the two too often.

Generally speaking, players in the Security Council need the freedom to write C&Cs that respect and be appropriate to their nominees. When the Security Council gains further sources of legislation, like the Liberation category, I suspect they will demand much more regulatory attention than C&Cs require.

Generally speaking, players throughout NS are expected to follow the rules, whatever those may be. In General, it means taking the spamfests to Forum 7 (or offsite). In NS/II, it means not godmodding or posting unwelcome things in others' RPs. In the WA, it means writing proposals that sound like they came from nations. SC players are not special. You, Unibot, are not special. For that matter, neither am I.

Players throughout NS were welcome to write C&Cs however they pleased for some time, and the quality of those works leave a lot to be desired, and "respectful" is not the word I would use to describe some of the ridiculousness that passed for many C&Cs. C&C proposals were being abused AND they were written from a first-person point of view, both of which were (and are) wholly inappropriate when representing the WA as a simulated international lawmaking agency.

[Callisdrun]

Who does it hurt? Well, other people who want to use the security council feature, really, and that's all. So.... basically it antagonizes RPers. Yeah, maybe you guys don't want to RP. That's fine, and I agree that the rule is unfair. But only a couple people wrote the rule, and you're punishing the rest of us for it. That's not fair either.

You could have used the Security Council before Rule IV though, Rule IV does nothing but legitimize RP language as the only language that is acceptable in Security Council resolutions, we didn't prohibit roleplaying before.

I have always tried to read proposals and vote on them in the SC. Before and after Rule 4.

You're making it impossible for anyone to use the SC. That's like breaking something so nobody else can use it just cause someone said you can't. I don't see how this could possibly help. When taking an action in response to something, it's always best to consider who that action actually affects, and make sure it's the party responsible for the grievance.

[Ballotonia]

So, you're basing your claim that the mods won't listen...

Please point me to where I made such a claim. It is IMHO clear that the mods are listening., since they are in fact responding to contributions. It just hasn't been making any difference so far.

... on a perceived sluggishness to update a sticky, and your apparent inability to comprehend basic English? Ard has stated right here that player input on R4 is welcome, and that there are several threads open where you can offer it.

I know. Hence, I've already offered my input several times, in different ways to hopefully improve me being understood.

Now the question remains whether you're actually interested in working with the mods to make the rule more player-friendly, or if you're instead content on ignoring mod solicitations and continuing to spout puerile nonsense about GA tyranny and genocide?

Please point me to where I "spouted" about so-called "GA tyranny and genocide". This is the kind of language I don't see myself using, so at this point in your message I'm beginning to suspect you're either confusing me for someone else or are holding me responsible for stuff someone else may have written.

Not from not sabotaging enough WA votes, I assure you. Moderation has made clear they do not care how many resolutions fail; the only way they are willing to bend on this is if players stop pretending they're suicide martyrs for a lost cause, and start engaging them on calibrating the new rule.

So far I've seen only one player state he/she would be going for the martyr route. And that isn't me.

Ballotonia

Dude*, I already know who you are. The forums sign your posts for you.

* or "Dudette"

I always sign my posts with my name. All of them. Get used to it, cause I'm not changing that just because you have something against that. At least I'm now convinced you're not confusing me with someone else, since you've read my name. So why are you putting words in my mouth? Can we please keep this civil?

Ballotonia

[Unibot]

You advocate totally freeform resolution writing, that's not the same as defending the culture of the SC Unibot, that's a personal view of how the SC should operate, you confuse the two too often.

Generally speaking, players in the Security Council need the freedom to write C&Cs that respect and be appropriate to their nominees. When the Security Council gains further sources of legislation, like the Liberation category, I suspect they will demand much more regulatory attention than C&Cs require.

Generally speaking, players throughout NS are expected to follow the rules, whatever those may be. In General, it means taking the spamfests to Forum 7 (or offsite). In NS/II, it means not godmodding or posting unwelcome things in others' RPs. In the WA, it means writing proposals that sound like they came from nations. SC players are not special. You, Unibot, are not special. For that matter, neither am I.

I accept full responsibilities for my actions, Krio, I said that the day I began this. If I get banned, I get banned, but at-least I get banned doing something I support, instead of not doing something and accepting something I deeply oppose.

[The Most Glorious Hack]

Last edit of the post containing Rule 4 has been June 11.

Shall I tell Ard to drop all the real life concerns she has so you can have an update, then?

I know that this "Rule 4" stuff is Earth shattering for gameplayers, but try to keep in mind that some of us do have lives outside of NationStates and that this is being done on a volunteer basis. Also keep in mind that we do discuss things in private, and sometimes those conversations move at a somewhat slow pace (see above re: lives and volunteerism).


I'd also like to remind Unibot that Max is not in the habit of unilaterally overturning the Moderators just because a random player sends him an e-mail. Furthermore, going on and on about grinding a section of the game to a standstill until your demands are met is not a good way to get in his good graces.

[Unibot]

I'd also like to remind Unibot that Max is not in the habit of unilaterally overturning the Moderators just because a random player sends him an e-mail. Furthermore, going on and on about grinding a section of the game to a standstill until your demands are met is not a good way to get in his good graces.

Well, I'm not the only one sending him e-mails and agreed, Hack, it is likely not a good way to get in his good graces. If I was in his position, I certainly wouldn't want some punk sending me emails about why his volunteers are making a grave mistake. It's sort of a move of desperation, if you know what I mean. Nowhere else to turn = a message of complaint to the boss. :/

I tried to write the letter as respectful as possible, I don't view this as some malicious attack on gameplayers or whatnot, but I do think this is a giant mistake that shows how much whoever created Rule IV is out-of-touch with the Security Council.

[Kalibarr]

Rule IV does nothing but legitimize RP language as the only language that is acceptable in Security Council resolutions

Again, it's "nation simulation language" (i.e., the official language of NationStates), not roleplay. There is a difference between the two. For one, every time a gameplayer makes an action in the actual game, it is recorded in official NS simulation language. Why SC resolutions should not respect that is beyond me.

Gameplay often goes beyond the game, to politics on offsite forums,IRC chat rooms or MSN, heck even the stuff on this forum doesn't have to be recorded "ICly" or in language the game would generate.

[Urgench]

Rule IV does nothing but legitimize RP language as the only language that is acceptable in Security Council resolutions

Again, it's "nation simulation language" (i.e., the official language of NationStates), not roleplay. There is a difference between the two. For one, every time a gameplayer makes an action in the actual game, it is recorded in official NS simulation language. Why SC resolutions should not respect that is beyond me.

Gameplay often goes beyond the game, to politics on offsite forums,IRC chat rooms or MSN, heck even the stuff on this forum doesn't have to be recorded "ICly" or in language the game would generate.

So does RP, and again the 4th rule isn't about In Character language, and naturally the contents of these forums does not have to respect the language of the game, the forums (both on site and off) allow for all the expansions and extrapolations which players have developed, ultimately what language is used on these forums doesn't really have any bearing on the situation.

[Ballotonia]

Last edit of the post containing Rule 4 has been June 11.

Shall I tell Ard to drop all the real life concerns she has so you can have an update, then?

Why would you, I asked for no such thing. IMHO, your vitriolic response is not constructive.

Ballotonia

[Urgench]

Last edit of the post containing Rule 4 has been June 11.

Shall I tell Ard to drop all the real life concerns she has so you can have an update, then?

Why would you, I asked for no such thing. IMHO, your vitriolic response is not constructive.

Ballotonia

Oh calm down, it was hardly vitriolic. Not everyone is posting at the same emotional pitch as you (and others) seem to be.

[TurtleShroom]

I still fail to understand this war on Rule Four.

It's not hard to word a resolution in-character. I mean, look at "Commend a Mean Old Man". It was beautifully written and comepletely deserving, covering IC and OOC aspects of the game, but those Third Wall goons- even MOM himself, who I don't consider a goon but a hero -smashed it into the ground.

I even sent a Telegram to AMOM to further understand this war. I want to understand exactly why so many older nations are whining, or, if it is whining at all! Is this truly a just cause? If it is, why are the moderators too greedy to listen to the Masses? If it's not, more power to them.


I'll just be blunt.

WHAT ARE GAMEPLAYERS?
WHAT ARE ROLEPLAYERS?
Where do I fall, based on my work?
What can I do to help?
Who's right, and why?
Why is this such a big deal?

I'm a big AMOM fan, so his responses really destabilized my hatred of the TWB. No one has given me a clear-cut answer, and I need one to take my side. I'm not an old nation, so I need information from the older ones. I've always been taught not to question authority (even though I nonetheless yell and argue with my parents), so I'm against Mod-basing. As an authority on a distant site myself, I can even sympathize with them on their refusal to listen.

Yet, many others have shown they run sites too, and their opinions differ strongly.

Another thing is that the Moderators are just letting all of us riot on this thread and elsewhere, stirring up endless and annoying flame wars, halting a lot of work in its path. Why don't they take a side? They should either crush/eject the 3WB or take their side. Remaining neutral is both counterproductive and a bit cowardly. Why won't they respond? Where's Violet when we need her?


I just want straight answers... -and I want to see this draw to a close. Really, I don't care who wins. I just want to understand this war.

[Maul-5]

I still fail to understand this war on Rule Four.

It's not hard to word a resolution in-character. I mean, look at "Commend a Mean Old Man". It was beautifully written and comepletely deserving, covering IC and OOC aspects of the game, but those Third Wall goons- even MOM himself, who I don't consider a goon but a hero -smashed it into the ground.

You see this was an issue. AMOM does not agree with Rule IV, and while he may deserve recognition, he deserves better recognition than that afforded by Rule IV. Rule IV - though not in practice - in theory outlaws language which disallows some communities (gameplayers) from explicitly letting their opinions clear.

WHAT ARE GAMEPLAYERS?
WHAT ARE ROLEPLAYERS?
Where do I fall, based on my work?
What can I do to help?
Who's right, and why?
Why is this such a big deal?

Gameplayers: People who utilise the technical details of the game (regional management) in order to gain fun. This includes Raiders and Defenders but can also include AMOM - with his pictures.
Roleplayers: People who write role played prose in any of the first five forums - F&NI, NationStates, International Incidents, NS Sports, Economics - and, occasionally, in the GA and - mildly - in the SC.
Where do I fall, based on my work?: I'm not aware of your work.
What can I do to help?: If you agree with 3WB that language should not be banned, in theory or practice, then you can vote down SC legislation. If you are not of this opinion, you can vote for - good - SC legislation to try and break the bloc.
Who's right, and why?: Depends who you ask, in my opinion, both sides have valid arguments. The 3WB is right that the SC should allow as many communities as possible to express themselves however they like. The other side (though I'm not sure there exists another united side) is composed of people who do not agree with the 3WB's methodology, or aim, and so oppose them argumentally and in votes.
Why is this such a big deal?: It is a seismic shift in the way the Security Council is ran. There existed originally only three rules. No terrible proposals passed (to my recollection) though some have commented on them and claimed they were insufficiently good. Some think Rule IV is the solution, but others think it just creates another problem - to a problem that was being solved slowly anyway as the SC voters become more aware of their power.

I'm a big AMOM fan, so his responses really destabilized my hatred of the TWB. No one has given me a clear-cut answer, and I need one to take my side. I'm not an old nation, so I need information from the older ones. I've always been taught not to question authority (even though I nonetheless yell and argue with my parents), so I'm against Mod-basing. As an authority on a distant site myself, I can even sympathize with them on their refusal to listen.

Yet, many others have shown they run sites too, and their opinions differ strongly.

Another thing is that the Moderators are just letting all of us riot on this thread and elsewhere, stirring up endless and annoying flame wars, halting a lot of work in its path. Why don't they take a side? They should either crush/eject the 3WB or take their side. Remaining neutral is both counterproductive and a bit cowardly. Why won't they respond? Where's Violet when we need her?


I just want straight answers... -and I want to see this draw to a close. Really, I don't care who wins. I just want to understand this war.

I hope my answers have helped to answer your questions, but I'm afraid for this large block I cannot give any conclusive answer. I can however say that [violet] is likely not responding due to the fact that she cannot be telegrammed and that real life concerns exist for moderators as it does for most of the rest of us (do you have any idea how many more posts there are if I even leave this forum for an hour? Quite a few to read through).

[Kalibarr]

Rule IV does nothing but legitimize RP language as the only language that is acceptable in Security Council resolutions

Again, it's "nation simulation language" (i.e., the official language of NationStates), not roleplay. There is a difference between the two. For one, every time a gameplayer makes an action in the actual game, it is recorded in official NS simulation language. Why SC resolutions should not respect that is beyond me.

Gameplay often goes beyond the game, to politics on offsite forums,IRC chat rooms or MSN, heck even the stuff on this forum doesn't have to be recorded "ICly" or in language the game would generate.

So does RP, and again the 4th rule isn't about In Character language, and naturally the contents of these forums does not have to respect the language of the game, the forums (both on site and off) allow for all the expansions and extrapolations which players have developed, ultimately what language is used on these forums doesn't really have any bearing on the situation.

Well if the Condemnation or Commendation were because of something done offsite then yes it would, rule 4 blocks that, unless it were two(or more) nations interacting, what about several regions interacting? It can be very difficult to manage relations between regions.

Now I have a question for the mods, my region and many others operate as if they were a nation, this in it's self has it's own level of ICness about it, though not in the sense that we are nations in a region or really anything like the "game language", though we don't act like a bunch of people playing a game, some regions act like federations of nations while others,such as mine act as a nation and we are citizens and government officials of it, we have our own IC for official documents, announcements, and even the occasional role play based on us as the government of a region, could we write proposals in this IC? in essence does the WA recognize that regions can be sovereign bodies, in the same way that nations are?

I hope that makes sense.

[New Amerik]

You know, the simplest way to resolve this fight would simply be to eliminate the SC entirely. No side wins, fair and equal

Really, it's probably going to be a stalemate if the bloc remains in the SC, and shit will only hit the fan more if it's attempted in the GA, which is still running quite smoothly.