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

[Todd McCloud]

For what it's worth...

I sort of liked it before, where we could do IC vs OOC C&C's. I know the idea of reverting back to the way it was has been thoroughly defeated, but the way *that* was allowed for both types of C&C's. Perhaps I am a bit behind in these discussions, but for me at least, that was ideal. Wasn't perfect, but hey, things were much simpler and fluid.

What IC C&Cs of any significance were there? How much actual constructive IC involvement had actually developed in the SC? To what extent was the SC a clearly open and clearly multi-purpose? To my eyes there was a dramatic bias in use towards OOC and GP orientated resolutions and the IC involvement was peripheral and poorly supported.

Again, for what it's worth, I remember a few C&C's here and there about IC nations, but initially they constituted mostly of fairly new nations trying to commend or condemn their friends. We just didn't have the IC representation initially, as those from the GA were ticked at the GP peeps coming in. Admittedly, we dominated the scene for a while. But balance was getting there. Kenny was condemned, Greater Nepal was condemned, The Joint Systems Alliance was commended, and there's a few others I might be missing. But, towards the end, we had that balance.

[Urgench]

For what it's worth...

I sort of liked it before, where we could do IC vs OOC C&C's. I know the idea of reverting back to the way it was has been thoroughly defeated, but the way *that* was allowed for both types of C&C's. Perhaps I am a bit behind in these discussions, but for me at least, that was ideal. Wasn't perfect, but hey, things were much simpler and fluid.

What IC C&Cs of any significance were there? How much actual constructive IC involvement had actually developed in the SC? To what extent was the SC a clearly open and clearly multi-purpose? To my eyes there was a dramatic bias in use towards OOC and GP orientated resolutions and the IC involvement was peripheral and poorly supported.

Again, for what it's worth, I remember a few C&C's here and there about IC nations, but initially they constituted mostly of fairly new nations trying to commend or condemn their friends. We just didn't have the IC representation initially, as those from the GA were ticked at the GP peeps coming in. Admittedly, we dominated the scene for a while. But balance was getting there. Kenny was condemned, Greater Nepal was condemned, The Joint Systems Alliance was commended, and there's a few others I might be missing. But, towards the end, we had that balance.

Old WAers weren't "ticked at the GP peeps coming in" they were unable to play a part of the game which fundamentally conflicted with the way they played the game.

Kenny's condemnation was a joke (in all senses of the word), and most of the other IC condemnations you've mentioned were extremely poor quality and not very well drafted. This was because there was a low level of involvement by people who played IC, because to their eyes the SC looked like an OOC body which dealt with GP concerns. There most certainly wasn't balance.

[Metania]

The way I see it, Rule 4 is the attempt to make that adapter between IC and OOC, so they have to use the same language despite their would-be intents.

The issue is that language is not really seemingly acceptable to either party. NERVUN of course already responded to this one, but one issue being that RPers who have different personalities from their nation's can't be separately condemned/commended without it impacting their RP (potentially; maybe not hugely, but it could be weird.). On the other hand, it becomes confusing and weird to try and C&C someone for behavior on the official forums.

So, of course, if Rule 4 were a programming language, then the simplest way to deal with both is to just make extensions that better support both things, rather than each side fighting one another for all eternity.

Since one can go tit-for-tat on every point and ultimately both sides can be wrong simultaneously, because the rule is supposed to be a bridge, not something 'owned' by one community over the other. As it already is, it is made to bridge things. It just... isn't working correctly yet.

Note that I did hear of saying 'Forums' as being acceptable (as long as it's tied in with the nation name thing) but leads me to question. Would "Commends Metania for being a source of great art, as seen through the international forums" work? It seems vague enough that OOC people can see "The player behind the nation" as being the source, while the IC people see "A nation is a source of great art which is spread through the various international forums." If so, or if this is acceptable without much editing, perhaps all it takes to make a still-coherent commendation based on forum activities is a little thinking rather than epic lines of war-text over not being able to go "COMMENDS Mr. Metania for being on the forums and drawing purdy pictures."

[Travancore-Cochin]

Note that I did hear of saying 'Forums' as being acceptable (as long as it's tied in with the nation name thing) but leads me to question. Would "Commends Metania for being a source of great art, as seen through the international forums" work? It seems vague enough that OOC people can see "The player behind the nation" as being the source, while the IC people see "A nation is a source of great art which is spread through the various international forums." If so, or if this is acceptable without much editing, perhaps all it takes to make a still-coherent commendation based on forum activities is a little thinking rather than epic lines of war-text over not being able to go "COMMENDS Mr. Metania for being on the forums and drawing purdy pictures."

As I understand it, that would be legal. I'd modify it a bit, though, since "seeing through" a forum sounds strange.
Commends Metania for being a source of great art, which is exhibited in various forums.

Additionally, you can play around and actually add the name of the NS subforum (where appropriate):
Commends Metania for being a source of great art in the World Arts & Fiction Forum.
Commends Metania for being a source of great wisdom in the World General Forum.
Commends Metania for being a source of great wit in the Seventh World Forum.

Personally, I don't have any problem with Rule 4, as long as it is interpreted as Ardchoille has demonstrated. However, I understand neither the logic nor the reasoning behind its introduction.

[Whamabama]

So now we're saying Rule 4 exists because having to ignore something when it doesn't fit your RP is soooooo hard?

Given that the SC is supposed to be for RPers as well as for GPers (and for any other group of players that's interested, too), operating it in a style that effectively forces RPers to ignore it wouldn't exactly be meeting Max's intentions...

I really don't see RPers using especially now Any interest they might have had before has now been squashed worse than for us GPers. I also doubt he knew the 4rth rule would kill the SC, or that the GPers would block any attempt to continue it under this form as we have.

[Callisdrun]

So now we're saying Rule 4 exists because having to ignore something when it doesn't fit your RP is soooooo hard?

Given that the SC is supposed to be for RPers as well as for GPers (and for any other group of players that's interested, too), operating it in a style that effectively forces RPers to ignore it wouldn't exactly be meeting Max's intentions...

I really don't see RPers using especially now Any interest they might have had before has now been squashed worse than for us GPers. I also doubt he knew the 4rth rule would kill the SC, or that the GPers would block any attempt to continue it under this form as we have.

There was some participation, and it might have increased.

We'll never know, now that it's pointless to do so, as gameplayers have made it clear that they regard the SC as their private den. We RPers apparently aren't welcome. GPers' contempt for us has been made pretty clear in this thread.

[The BlAAtschApen]

So now we're saying Rule 4 exists because having to ignore something when it doesn't fit your RP is soooooo hard?

Given that the SC is supposed to be for RPers as well as for GPers (and for any other group of players that's interested, too), operating it in a style that effectively forces RPers to ignore it wouldn't exactly be meeting Max's intentions...

I really don't see RPers using especially now Any interest they might have had before has now been squashed worse than for us GPers. I also doubt he knew the 4rth rule would kill the SC, or that the GPers would block any attempt to continue it under this form as we have.

There was some participation, and it might have increased.

We'll never know, now that it's pointless to do so, as gameplayers have made it clear that they regard the SC as their private den. We RPers apparently aren't welcome. GPers' contempt for us has been made pretty clear in this thread.

I'll reply with a quote from someone who I think is a GPer:

Thing is, when a full GPer sees an IC proposal then that's just what it is, an IC proposal. We know it's IC, recognize it as part of someone elses way of playing the game, and treat it as such. Some with disdain, but most I know will handle it with sufficient respect. There's no problem with ignoring them if need be, or trying to see it from an RP perspective and estimate whether a Yay or Nay vote would be appropriate according to ones own personal political standards. All fine, no problem there.

[Whamabama]

There was some participation, and it might have increased.

We'll never know, now that it's pointless to do so, as gameplayers have made it clear that they regard the SC as their private den. We RPers apparently aren't welcome. GPers' contempt for us has been made pretty clear in this thread.

That is not what this is about. RPers should be able to use the SC just as much as anybody should. This is not a GP den, and I don't know any GPers who think it should be.

It isn't GP that has squashed many RPers interests in the SC, it is rule 4 that is hobbling the ability to write a C&C that would fit into what most RPers that I know want.

If anything I would think the many of the RP crowd would help us, as we are trying to help them. I know that there are many types of RP's, and even those that rule 4 would not hamper a C&C written by them, and that is unfortunate that that group is caught up in the middle of this.

However this is the only tool we have to make a point, as we can't change the rules ourselves, we can't change code, or make anyone even listen to us for that matter, and I am grateful for the MODS who are talking to us. It may not get us what we want, but at least we are getting that, they don't have to.

[Palaam]

As much as it interests me to watch the continuing balkanization of the gamebase into RP, GP, WA, half-RP, full-GP, quarter-WA maybe-a-little-of-both-i'm-into-experimentation factions, what does it all have to do with the rule as it has been implemented?

So a bloc of players doesn't like Rule 4. Hasn't it been explained how to make Rule 4 work to that bloc's advantage? Or is it not enough that Ard, and now NERVUN, have gone to great lengths to explain how the rule works and can be interpreted?

[Metania]

Note that I did hear of saying 'Forums' as being acceptable (as long as it's tied in with the nation name thing) but leads me to question. Would "Commends Metania for being a source of great art, as seen through the international forums" work? It seems vague enough that OOC people can see "The player behind the nation" as being the source, while the IC people see "A nation is a source of great art which is spread through the various international forums." If so, or if this is acceptable without much editing, perhaps all it takes to make a still-coherent commendation based on forum activities is a little thinking rather than epic lines of war-text over not being able to go "COMMENDS Mr. Metania for being on the forums and drawing purdy pictures."

As I understand it, that would be legal. I'd modify it a bit, though, since "seeing through" a forum sounds strange.
Commends Metania for being a source of great art, which is exhibited in various forums.

Additionally, you can play around and actually add the name of the NS subforum (where appropriate):
Commends Metania for being a source of great art in the World Arts & Fiction Forum.
Commends Metania for being a source of great wisdom in the World General Forum.
Commends Metania for being a source of great wit in the Seventh World Forum.

Personally, I don't have any problem with Rule 4, as long as it is interpreted as Ardchoille has demonstrated. However, I understand neither the logic nor the reasoning behind its introduction.

Hm, if what you say is true, then perhaps part of the issue is a lack of simple examples on how to do certain things without breaking it. Topid's sampler is a step in the right direction, but without some boilerplate templates to help assist people who want to do certain things, the rule would appear to the outsider to simply prohibit or make confusing outright those actions.

[Astarial]

Ok, with you so far. However, I would like to note that the Security Council is supposed to cover the whole of NationStates, including RP nations, GP nations, General, Sports, and F7 (God there's a scary prospect, a commendation for an F7 nation...).

Sure - and anything that isn't GP, I don't follow. Not that I can't parse it, but more that the value just doesn't make sense to me. Commend someone for excellent skill in sports? For a fake population and pseudorandomly generated resultes? Color me not interested. But I give them all the same benefit of the doubt in terms of whether they're legit for their communities.

Ok, I hear what you're saying. As Ard herself has pointed out though, the second clause of R4 is from the most worthy Lady Nai herself.

You're right, of course, and having reviewed the current wording I'm very tentatively less concerned (how's that for vague? ). Like Nai, I would like to see a response to the issues raised in Topid's thread before I feel comfortable making a judgement.

I do have remaining concerns over the OOC issue, which I will address later in this post.

Ah, now we're getting down to the meat and bones. Ok, for your first concern (About Moderators making different calls), I am afraid that you're going to have to take my word on this, but in the Suuuuuuuuuuuuper doooooooooooooooooper Seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeekrit Mod Lair (And izakaiya), there's currently 4 different threads a-going with various Mods tossing in their oars about Rule 4 and what it means and how to apply it. Ard, because she didn't run away fast enough, has, ah, volunteered for the job of being the main contact point for the SC, given her status as an active game mod. So while you have been seeing her mostly, the rest of us have been following along and trying to help. Furthermore, given that she IS the go-to-gal for the SC (And the WA in general), hers is the advice that the rest of us would seek concerning anything that is not cut and dried.

For example, I've been trying to help out in the GA with legality questions for their proposals. Anything that is not a clear violation gets tossed to the rest of the Moderation staff to chew over and we come to concensus before issuing a ruling. If I, for example, ever made a really silly rulling (Such as forthwith, all GA proposals MUST start off with a nice haiku), I expect to be smacked down by Ard and my fellow Mods (And possibly turned into a frog).

That's definitely reassuring to hear, and I don't disbelieve you. But interpretation is something which is inherently frightening - we draft constitutions and laws and policies all designed to leave no wiggle room for interpretation, lest an enemy exploit them to gain an edge. We see a rule which can very clearly be interpreted in a way that hurts us (and it's very telling that so many of us pick up on that), and we're being told to put our WA status - our GP life - in your hands and trust that you won't abuse that loophole.

We play a game of espionage and lies, where a trusted friend can turn out to be a hated enemy. We play a game where ill-gotten trust can lead to complete destruction of a community, as in forum griefing. We play a game where we cannot let incorrectitudes stand because they will come back to bite us in the ass.

It's like developing software - you don't ask your users to not exploit bugs, you fix the bugs so they can't be exploited.

Yes, it will involve a change in terminology for some (If not all), but I have high hopes that all can adapt because, after all, you all learned the terminology for your chosen style of play in the first place.

I did learn the terminology for my style of play... as did all other Gameplayers with me. Asking us to change how we communicate with each other (because let's face it, non-GPers are going to have zero interest in GP-targeted resolutions) doesn't make much sense to me.

Well, I used "The leader of" as an example to be able to be able to get around the loss of certain pronouns. The nation of works just as well. But to take it further, you could use the nation tag to write:

COMMENDS NERVUN for their great leadership in rallying their alies in the Battle of Kawanakajima which led to the expultion of invading forces.

Yes, you have to change the pronoun to their, but it does read the same. As Ard noted, anyone clicking on the link would be taken to the nation page. That page IS your identifier on the game, not the person behind it. It is, after all, what the game actually sees. What I hope is, and what I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is, that during this period, everyone will come together and build the language and terms needed for this so that they will become as easy then as the terms you know now.

Fair enough, and I certainly have no objection to using "they" - it being the correct third person singular non-gendered pronoun, after all.

Yes, even RPers who can't just write about how so-and-so is such a good RPer or So-and-so godmods like hell.

As my Lady said,

The difference between what you just described and what we want is that RP'ers have to move OUT of their in-game world in order to talk that way. I.e., they are NO LONGER PLAYING THE GAME when they start to talk about godmoding or statwanking. We, on the other hand, are just asking to be allowed to remain within the linguistic framework of the game we're playing.

However, saying for example "AMAZED at the level of intelligence gathering exhibited by Batmanistan" because if I understand the use of puppets correctly, most of them are being used as spies, correct?

Spies sometimes, though spying dried up mostly when Influence happened. Now, they're mostly used for military missions - you use a clean puppet so your opponents can't watch your nation's activities and know what your army is planning, then you toss it once it's gotten dirty and can be tracked.

Could you say something like, "AMAZED at the intelligence gathered by Batmanistan through the use of puppets"? (I would even concede "puppet nations" if just "puppets" isn't okay - it's not quite how we'd say it, but it's clearly understandable by any GPer as referring to puppets. In contrast, "through the establishment of puppet governments" would cause a GPer to scratch their head in confusion and should not be considered an acceptable substitute.)

Well, the problem with allowing every group to submit their own language means that we would quickly have the SC cease to function as part of its umbrella organization. If you would allow me a Biblical analogy, it would become a Tower of Babel. So, yes, while this language limits everyone, it is limiting everyone together. In other words, instead of groups ignoring each other in the SC because they cannot understand what the other is talking about, we're hopefully talking in the same language.

That will never happen - never. Sorry. RP and GP are two entirely different spheres of play. They talk about nukes, and slavery - we hear "I'm playing with my imaginary friends!" We talk about defending, and feeders - they hear "I'm not a nation LALALALALA!" Our worlds may share some common terms, but they are fundamentally described using different language.

And that's okay! We don't all need to speak one language!

Can you explain why it has been determined that one language is better than letting each group speak to itself in its own way?

The mods have no wiggle room to play with which matters from GP perspective, and the language changes (IC only) means we'd have to butcher our proposals to mask in generic language precisely those things we find important to say clearly in a resolution. Without OOC we can't saywhat we want to say, because making it readable ICly also removes the actual content to the point where it's no longer clear whether someone is being commended for being a good defender or playing RP really well. If one can no longer convey what is intended, language itself has failed miserably and all meaning is lost.

And here we come to my biggest remaining concern with Rule 4 as it is written - just what is IC and OOC anyway? It seems like it ought to be so simple, and within a community, it is. But between communities, we have these culture shocks, and this is one of them.

Roleplay-IC: My ambassador does naughty things to your princess, aka, RP personae.
Roleplay-OOC: Anything not part of that RP persona, including questions to the DM/GM, discussions among players as to damage done by one character to another in a fistfight, whole threads of "Post your picture!" or "Rant about school/work!".
Gameplay-IC: Things we do in the context of being a citizen of a regional government, being in a military and defending or invading, drafting Constitutions and laws, having trials, and so on.
Gameplay-OOC: The player behind the nation(s), the one who bakes blueberry muffins and distributes them via IRC, who rants about school/work, and so on.

Most Gameplayers consider what they do to be "OOC", because it's difficult to describe in an IC way. I'm not pretending to be a character - the closest I get is when spying, but then I'm just lying to everyone, not engaging in mutually agreed upon pretend. When thinking through the legal implications of a proposed law, I'm bringing my background and my knowledge to the discussion, not that of a constitutional scholar with a PhD in time travel.

But, what we advocate for in GP-IC does not necessarily line up with our true GP-OOC beliefs. I can advocate for a monarchy in our region based on the realities of the God-appointed Founder, while despising the vestiges of European monarchy. I can advocate for non-separate spheres of government due to the realities of forumial activity, while in Real Life (tm) believing in the separation of powers.

I don't want to be able to Commend Lady Nai for her blueberry muffins, or Condemn her for ruining a perfectly good tupperware by sticking it with postage stamps. That's all Gameplay-OOC, and it sits just as wrongly with us as with you. I would like to be able to Commend Nai for her extensive work as regional Founder in maintaining the security of the region, without having to bend over backwards to say it.

So when Rule 4 says things cannot be written OOC... which OOC does it mean?

[Unibot]

The way I see it, Rule 4 is the attempt to make that adapter between IC and OOC, so they have to use the same language despite their would-be intents.

An adapter between IC and OOC? Its more like turning good OOC proposals into cheap IC proposals with vague wording, and leaving proposals on IC topics to be much superior in written quality.

[NERVUN]

My appologies, I meant to get back to this last night, but sadly between being asked to provide expertise on gyroscopes (Daddy, spin the top!), aerodynamics (Daddy, make a paper airplane), and great American literary works (Daddy, read Cat in the Hat!), plus last nights porn spammer... So if I repeat points that have already been made, I am sorry.

I find myself completely unable to start a post on this topic tonight without inserting four letter words to try to make people listen to what I'm saying, so here, have some splices of posts I wrote elsewhere to get warmed up.

I would prefer that you DIDN'T use four letter words and I am trying my best to listen.

[...] I've tried to understand [the problem] myself, because I thought we were close to a compromise, too. The closest I've been able to get is my distinction between "wording" and "principle". It's as if Ard looks at the wording she wants first, and doesn't bother justifying it until after. But the justification is what matters more - in fact, it's the only thing that matters. If the justification is solid, the wording will simply follow from it naturally.

It's like... inductive vs. deductive reasoning.

...no, WAIT! That's exactly what it is. Ard is approaching Rule 4 inductively: here are these examples of legal and illegal. Here is what can be extrapolated about legality from these examples. Here is the rule we can create to summarize what we have learned about legality from the rulings made. It's bottom-up:

Deductive (left) vs. Inductive (right):



But the principle is all we're worried about! We want to know before anything else that we're all working from the same theory - the same principles of playing NS. Because that's where our community has been burned time and time again: when admin, moderators, and other players simply fail to understand what on earth it is that we're doing over in Gameplay. We're incredibly anxious about that - and if we knew only what Theory was being set in stone, we could live with whatever other rules were derived from it. [...]

Ok, the basic theory being set out is that the Security Council is part of the World Assembly. The World Assembly is, in game terms, a collection of nations that has gathered together to discuss, and effect, world affairs by either passing resolutions that affect WA members only to commend and condems that can effect any nation within NationStates. Max set the SC up to allow a 'voice' by the players that it could not have before due to the previous structure of the World Assembly (Now the General Assembly part). What's been a bit problamatic is how we can allow ALL voices to use the SC for ALL parts of the game and still allow the SC to 'fit' with the fact that it IS a part of the WA. Hence Rule 4 as an attempt to bring the SC back to the WA.

In many ways it would have been far easier on us if the Admins had just set up a polling site somewhere for popularity contests, but thems the breaks.

I then went on to explain at great and unnecessarily repetitive length how I thought this had played out in these arguments.

What I'm hearing from NERVUN (and thanks for chiming in) is a reaffirmation of bits and pieces of things Ard or others arguing in her place have said here for a while. And that is that, for unidentified reasons, suddenly it has become imperative that the SC express itself as "a collection of nations that have come together" where the concept of "collection of nations" has been defined in explicitly NATION with PEOPLE LIVING IN IT, DUR! terms. That is, in an unnecessary and still unexplained exclusion of the model of "nation" that is the very foundation of Gameplay.

Hopefully I have explained elsewhere why, but if you are still unsure, please let me know.

Gameplay nations don't have diplomats that speak for us. They are diplomats, and therefore perfectly capable of writing in an official, diplomatic, or whatever the heck else you want to get at stylistically, way. Why specifically make excuses for, when not excluding (gendered pronouns), the language in which we conduct our business in-game? We woke up one day to find that the SC, in a (completely) unprecedented spirit of harmony with the other half of the WA, has decided not to acknowledge, in any place where people might see it, that alternative ways of playing a nation simulation game exist.

Ok, you have a good point here, we ARE asking you to change your language for this section, we are also asking that everyone else change their language for this section as well.

Believe me, while I am not a gameplayer, I get where you are coming from because I spent the bulk of my time (Read all) before being Mod'ed in General where the nation is the player. I got very used to being NERVUN, not the nation of, not the people of, but it became my name the same way my other Internet handles have become my online ID by which I am known. Since becoming a Mod, this has been even more the case as I am now far more reconized as NERVUN the Moderator than anything else. So when I finally started dipping my toes into GA, it was very odd to try and shunt that notion to the side and pick up another suit as it were to wear.

But that all said, General is not GA. GA is not II. II is not GE&S, which is not FB&I, which is not NS, which is not Gameplay, which is not NS Sports, which is not the SC. Each subforum has different ways of expressing themselves with their own code words, terms, politics, identity and the like. The SC is the place where it all is supposed to come together and we need a way for everyone to be able to talk, or else we end up with the same divisons as before. Since NationStates is, at heart, a nation simulator with various and profoundly different ways of playing, we're going to base level.

The idea that [this change] was to stop flaming was dropped, but that means I still don't know why we have this rule. The only suggestions I've heard have been "because we want to the WA to sound consistent" - which is coming completely without warning, without discussion, in contradiction to the premise that we'd be setting precedent with the resolutions we passed, and a year too late.

In terms of the year, yeah, it is late. But, as I explained elsewhere, it was because we were waiting to see what could and would happen. You guys have surprised us over and over again. We had the blueprints for what Max wanted, but we (And Max and the Admins) also knew that originally Max wanted a satirical nation simulation game to generate interest in his book Jennifer Government. What he GOT was radically different and that was due to the players. So we waited to see, would we get to the spirit of what was intended, would it be better than what was intended, or would what was going on start causing more issues.

Ah, now we're getting down to the meat and bones. Ok, for your first concern (About Moderators making different calls), I am afraid that you're going to have to take my word on this, but in the Suuuuuuuuuuuuper doooooooooooooooooper Seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeekrit Mod Lair (And izakaiya), there's currently 4 different threads a-going with various Mods tossing in their oars about Rule 4 and what it means and how to apply it. Ard, because she didn't run away fast enough, has, ah, volunteered for the job of being the main contact point for the SC, given her status as an active game mod. So while you have been seeing her mostly, the rest of us have been following along and trying to help. Furthermore, given that she IS the go-to-gal for the SC (And the WA in general), hers is the advice that the rest of us would seek concerning anything that is not cut and dried.

The problem here is, Gameplayers don't understand moderation here. At all. And pardon me for saying this, but y'all really don't understand us, either. Every other player group subject to moderation here has an active representative on the moderation team - even Sports. But not Gameplay. You have no idea how many times in the last 2 months I've wished Eras were here.

Of course, that gap is a result of none of us hanging out on the official forums post-Influence. For some perspective here - in 2008, I'd played NS for two years, getting horribly over-involved in the history, politics, and plotting of Gameplay. And I could not have named a single NS mod.

Not one. Two years of in-depth involvement, spending hours on NS every day, and I'd never needed to. The official forums were a no-man's land, and the moderators there had nothing to do with me or the game I was playing. For most of the players in my region and the other regions I know, that's still the case. And that ignorance goes the opposite way, too. The current slate of mods have never spent time in a Gameplay community. You/they have no idea who we are, let alone how we think or play the game, what our concerns are, or how the Gameplay system ticks.

So when you/they propose to adjudicate things of concern to us, you bet we get nervous. We're not used to dealing with the mods to begin with, and then to know that the person making the rules for our community knows nothing about that community... well, it's terrifying. Even when we trust your intentions, as I and (I think) most others do, we don't trust you to be able to make good decisions from a position of complete ignorance. Which is why we need to hear the basis of the rulings and have it all spelled out right up front.

Believe you me, I wish that Erastide was here as well. And you're right. You are very correct in saying that I don't know gameplay. I tried to get in, but my timezone plus other matters kept me out of it. You're right in that most, if not all, of the current active Moderators don't understand grameplay too well either.

Ard has already suggested that you nominate a gameplay Mod and I second her in that. It would be the best thing for us to have is someone with that knowledge that we can tap and run things past, but knowing that giving someone the Mod cap takes a loooooooooong time (Reppy made a rather nice joke about how many months it can take), we're flying blind here. So as a Moderator who wants to make sure you guys enjoy this game and feel welcome here as much as I can, let me ask you, no, let me beg you, educate us.

Please don't say "You don't understand us." "You don't know us." "You hate us." Please tell me WHY and WHAT you think we're not understanding. Fill in our gaps please. In other words, consider me and the rest of the Mods who are working hard on this to try and find that bridge not as the opposing side, but as newbies to the world of Gameplay who need our hands held.

I on my part will do my best to explain how we are approching things as Moderators to the best of our ability and allowence as well as answer questions about how things are run on the forums.

*SNIP*

We need one thing and one thing only: to know exactly what principle of playing NS you intend to uphold in your rulings. Ard seems to think her enforcement of "sounds as if it's about a nation" and my ban on "refers to NS as a game, or to the personal characteristics of a player" result in the same thing. I really, really don't think so. I'm waiting to hear back on the questions I asked in Topid's thread, for just that reason.

Ok, why do you feel so?

Why, for instance, are Uni's alternative suggestions not the end of the story? If you incorporate people's suggestions without removing the elements that cause harm, you're just giving a shot of morphine to a man with a steel girder through his gut.

Uni's suggestions are good ones, but they do fail to address the whole Part of the WA and allow all groups to make C&Cs that at least sound like they are coming from the same body. That said, I must admit that we haven't had a chance to talk about Uni's suggestions in depth due to the evil curse of RL. Ard is very busy right now so the talk for the Mods is going far, far slower than this thread.

Like I said, while this seems to be aimed at GPs, it's going to be everyone who is going to have to adjust, and create, the langue needed for this to cover everyone. Yes, even RPers who can't just write about how so-and-so is such a good RPer or So-and-so godmods like hell.

The difference between what you just described and what we want is that RP'ers have to move OUT of their in-game world in order to talk that way. I.e., they are NO LONGER PLAYING THE GAME when they start to talk about godmoding or statwanking. We, on the other hand, are just asking to be allowed to remain within the linguistic framework of the game we're playing.

Or in other words, we believe

the C&C should be cast in the terms used for what they're being C&Cd for.

It was fine for a whole year. Why isn't it now?

Well, hopefully I've addressed that, but please continue this dialog if I have not.

[NERVUN]

If I, for example, ever made a really silly rulling (Such as forthwith, all GA proposals MUST start off with a nice haiku).

I could get along perfectly well with that ruling...

Heh heh heh. Evil impulses...

[Urgench]

That's definitely reassuring to hear, and I don't disbelieve you. But interpretation is something which is inherently frightening - we draft constitutions and laws and policies all designed to leave no wiggle room for interpretation, lest an enemy exploit them to gain an edge. We see a rule which can very clearly be interpreted in a way that hurts us (and it's very telling that so many of us pick up on that), and we're being told to put our WA status - our GP life - in your hands and trust that you won't abuse that loophole.

We play a game of espionage and lies, where a trusted friend can turn out to be a hated enemy. We play a game where ill-gotten trust can lead to complete destruction of a community, as in forum griefing. We play a game where we cannot let incorrectitudes stand because they will come back to bite us in the ass.

It's like developing software - you don't ask your users to not exploit bugs, you fix the bugs so they can't be exploited.

I think you're experiencing culture shock, the WA doesn't imbibe of the culture your describing and the Mods have no axe to grind or secret agendas they want to exploit you for. The reason the rule is left this way is to allow rules lawyering, this allows you (and everyone else for that matter) to develop the rule and use it in ways which will benefit you and everyone else.

That will never happen - never. Sorry. RP and GP are two entirely different spheres of play. They talk about nukes, and slavery - we hear "I'm playing with my imaginary friends!" We talk about defending, and feeders - they hear "I'm not a nation LALALALALA!" Our worlds may share some common terms, but they are fundamentally described using different language.

And that's okay! We don't all need to speak one language!

Can you explain why it has been determined that one language is better than letting each group speak to itself in its own way?

The mods have no wiggle room to play with which matters from GP perspective, and the language changes (IC only) means we'd have to butcher our proposals to mask in generic language precisely those things we find important to say clearly in a resolution. Without OOC we can't saywhat we want to say, because making it readable ICly also removes the actual content to the point where it's no longer clear whether someone is being commended for being a good defender or playing RP really well. If one can no longer convey what is intended, language itself has failed miserably and all meaning is lost.

The reason a relatively universal set of fixed language points are necessary is because this is the WA. It's not an offsite forum, it's not the Gameplay subforum of these forums, it's not in fact akin to any other forum or subforum at all since what it concludes and the laws it passes are a part of the game. Not only that but the WA has a specific description and purpose. What I don't understand is why GPers cannot accept the idea of adapting anything about their technical jargon to the setting of the WA? I mean were no adaptations expected? Was it thought that the WA all of sudden was no longer what it had always been?

GP developed outside the official forums meaning that it has its own specific technical language which it seems is somewhat independent of the customary language of the official forums. Now if you consider the latitude built in to the rule and the fact that nothing but the C or C in question is being required to observe this bare minimum of reference to the game why is it so much of a mammoth task for GPers to begin to develop the way they talk about their way of playing to give it a slightly more official flavour? I mean surely the extension of GP in to the WA would mean a natural development in technical idiom wouldn't it? Or was the WA itself expected to change it's character totally to suit the apparently immovable, unevolving, language of GP?

I don't want to be able to Commend Lady Nai for her blueberry muffins, or Condemn her for ruining a perfectly good tupperware by sticking it with postage stamps. That's all Gameplay-OOC, and it sits just as wrongly with us as with you. I would like to be able to Commend Nai for her extensive work as regional Founder in maintaining the security of the region, without having to bend over backwards to say it.

So when Rule 4 says things cannot be written OOC... which OOC does it mean?

The underlined portion could be transplanted directly in to a compliant resolution right now if you wanted so long as you used Naivetry (with nation tags) and removed the gendered pronoun. The 4th rule isn't about a dichotomy between IC and OOC, it's about asking all users of the SC to be mindful of certain basic facts about the WA and its place in the game, and developing a language which both respects these facts and conveys whatever meaning they wish clearly.

[NERVUN]

One caution: remember that if a Gameplay mod is appointed (and, obviously, I can't guarantee it) the person you inflict the post on will have to reduce the time they spend doing the part of NS that they most love, because that's the way modding works. If you know someone who's so involved in every facet of Gameplay that you think they'd make the perfect mod, it may not be a kindness to nominate them.

Lord yes, I USED to spend all my time in General arguing about abortion for the upteenth time, now I'm spending all my time in SC arguing about R4 for the upteenth time... wait a min...

[NERVUN]

Whatever the value of your arguments this nonsense about inequality and underlying opinions on validity etc are patently wrong and deeply unhelpful. Considering how little of what GPers do is actually based on the principles of a nation simulation game it's hardly surprising that some of the terms they use would not fit neatly with the language which might be expected to be used by a part of a nation simulation game- the WA. That this rule is being applied in a way which continues to allow GPers to convey what they want to convey about the way they play the game rather puts the lie to this inequality/validity absurdness.

Yet oddly enough, Gameplayers play the game based exactly on what, mechanically, has been implemented. Not based on the verbiage of the theme, which is what Roleplayers seem to loosely be basing their actions on.

Let's see what we have in the game, shall we?

We've got RPers who consistently ignore entire aspects of the game just to make their own RP work. This can be simple stuff like population totals (simple example: DFD has been ignoring that one for years). Another one: you cannot kill your own citizens, since you cannot reduce the population total. Ever. No matter what your policies, it goes up steadily. Nations can and do move around tied to black helicopters. Even if those nations have 15+ billion people in them. We've got nations RPing medieval times, RPing Future tech, etc... The entire RP 'community' seems to me to be based on cherry-picking what they want from the game while totally ignoring everything else. Yet ignoring an SC proposal which isn't in accordance with your standards is described as too much effort and something that cannot be done, and even something that 'excludes' the RP community from using the SC. I don't buy that, it's utterly inconsistent with what RPers are already doing on a daily basis by their own choosing.

Gameplayers tend to ignore all written verbiage, the theme. For Gameplayers, it's all just players handling accounts. Being a 'defender' or 'invader' are qualities which belong to a player, not an abstract entity called 'nation'. Similarly, when we refer to 'native', we are talking about people. The theme of NS is inherently contradictory (for a supposed 'simulation game' it is deeply flawed and fails at being even close to a serious simulation), and Gameplayers ignore the theme entirely. We deal with which bits we can move around on the server. Some are important, others are not, depending on how many other bits can be altered as a result, and how they are perceived by others. Thing is, when a full GPer sees an IC proposal then that's just what it is, an IC proposal. We know it's IC, recognize it as part of someone elses way of playing the game, and treat it as such. Some with disdain, but most I know will handle it with sufficient respect. There's no problem with ignoring them if need be, or trying to see it from an RP perspective and estimate whether a Yay or Nay vote would be appropriate according to ones own personal political standards. All fine, no problem there.

Yet, despite all of this, it is deemed necessary (apparently 'because Max says so') that the GPers have to adjust their writing style to be in line with a type of play we do not even play, a type of play we do not want to play, and a type of play we certainly will not enjoy playing even if we're forced to play it.

Thank you for your verbage, seriously because I am still struggling to find out what gameplayers feel that they are missing out on. However... I do have a question for you guys, and a serious one, since I have been reading about how gameplayers ignore the forums and the actual nation part of the game, why then are you so concerned with how the SC writes its proposals for C&Cs?

If this sounds like belittling or attacking, I am sorry, but I am dead serious because I have just read a number of posts by gameplayers talking about how the let the rest of NS alone so I am very curious as to why this matter so much that the SC be allowed to say what it wants about the game.

@Nervun, thank you for your explanations. It has made a lot more clear to me. Primarily how this situation isn't going to be resolved any time soon. The mods have no wiggle room to play with which matters from GP perspective, and the language changes (IC only) means we'd have to butcher our proposals to mask in generic language precisely those things we find important to say clearly in a resolution. Without OOC we can't saywhat we want to say, because making it readable ICly also removes the actual content to the point where it's no longer clear whether someone is being commended for being a good defender or playing RP really well. If one can no longer convey what is intended, language itself has failed miserably and all meaning is lost.

There's not a lot, but there is some. And Max is listening and so are the rest of us so we can see if we can't find some compromise somwhere.

As for the rest, let me ask you a favor if I may. I admit that this is going to require a bit of work, but it would really help me understand where you guys are coming from. Could you please write a proposal? Post it here in this thread. Commend or condem is up to you. Who is up to you. You don't have to be R4 compliant, because I want to see exactly what you want to write and why we cannot find different ways of putting them that still allows the meaning to go through.

[NERVUN]

The only aspect of the game I've ever been obliged to ignore from an RP perspective is the SC, almost everything else, with the judicious use of reinterpretation can be justified in RP terms. In essence that's all that's being asked here of the GP community but on a much smaller scale, use language which is both subtle and clear and you will have the messages you want to convey and the SC will remain congruent with the game. It's actually not that huge an ask Nai.

My point is that Gameplay is already congruent with the game - every bit as congruent as RP. RP and GP are simply not congruent with each other, because each is based upon the core principles of the game ignored or downplayed by the other community. And because I'm a fan of my little bug-eyed Venn diagram today:

It's a blue Anpanman!

Er... sorry.

I can has affirmation of big blue circle in the SC, please? I could hardly care less about how Rule 4 is worded so long as that's the end result.

We're tying to find a way...

[Astarial]

That's definitely reassuring to hear, and I don't disbelieve you. But interpretation is something which is inherently frightening - we draft constitutions and laws and policies all designed to leave no wiggle room for interpretation, lest an enemy exploit them to gain an edge. We see a rule which can very clearly be interpreted in a way that hurts us (and it's very telling that so many of us pick up on that), and we're being told to put our WA status - our GP life - in your hands and trust that you won't abuse that loophole.

We play a game of espionage and lies, where a trusted friend can turn out to be a hated enemy. We play a game where ill-gotten trust can lead to complete destruction of a community, as in forum griefing. We play a game where we cannot let incorrectitudes stand because they will come back to bite us in the ass.

It's like developing software - you don't ask your users to not exploit bugs, you fix the bugs so they can't be exploited.

I think you're experiencing culture shock, the WA doesn't imbibe of the culture your describing and the Mods have no axe to grind or secret agendas they want to exploit you for. The reason the rule is left this way is to allow rules lawyering, this allows you (and everyone else for that matter) to develop the rule and use it in ways which will benefit you and everyone else.

And I'm trying to explain where we're coming from. In the game we play, leaving things open is asking to get hurt, so being asked to leave things open feels like asking us to punch ourselves in the face.

Like I said, I don't disbelieve him that the mods are in agreement. But letting the language stay where it could be used against us by someone bent on (in-game) evil runs counter to everything we know... so we don't trust it.

The reason a relatively universal set of fixed language points are necessary is because this is the WA.

"The WA needs one common language because it's the WA."

You realize that's circular, right? And demonstrably inaccurate - GA and SC are both part of the WA, but they don't have a common language

It's not an offsite forum, it's not the Gameplay subforum of these forums, it's not in fact akin to any other forum or subforum at all since what it concludes and the laws it passes are a part of the game.

This is true, and it wouldn't make sense for it to be a Gameplay subforum, because it ought to be open to all groups to use in their native tongues.

GP developed outside the official forums meaning that it has its own specific technical language which it seems is somewhat independent of the customary language of the official forums.

England, France, Russia, and their languages all developed outside of the UN... that did not stop the UN from recognizing more than one language.

(That it only recognizes six is another matter, and has some dimensions of argument that this does not.)

why is it so much of a mammoth task for GPers to begin to develop the way they talk about their way of playing to give it a slightly more official flavour?

You still have not established that one language is indeed superior - morally, spiritually, emotionally, legally, anything. You have merely stated that it is.

If you can demonstrate in the context of this game that using one language confers a definite advantage, you'll have something to stand on.

I mean surely the extension of GP in to the WA would mean a natural development in technical idiom wouldn't it? Or was the WA itself expected to change it's character totally to suit the apparently immovable, unevolving, language of GP?

By WA, do you mean GA? If so, I see no possible application of Gameplay principles to its resolutions, as clean water and international criminal courts trouble us not one whit.

If you don't mean the GA, I'm not sure I follow. When creating a new body, why not give all groups the ability to use it as they see fit? Why enforce a method of communication that just plain does not work for them?

The 4th rule isn't about a dichotomy between IC and OOC, it's about asking all users of the SC to be mindful of certain basic facts about the WA and its place in the game, and developing a language which both respects these facts and conveys whatever meaning they wish clearly.

No, it's not about a dichotomy - but when the rule itself uses "OOC" as one method of determining legality, it's very important to be completely clear as to exactly what OOC is being referred to.

[NERVUN]

The only aspect of the game I've ever been obliged to ignore from an RP perspective is the SC, almost everything else, with the judicious use of reinterpretation can be justified in RP terms. In essence that's all that's being asked here of the GP community but on a much smaller scale, use language which is both subtle and clear and you will have the messages you want to convey and the SC will remain congruent with the game. It's actually not that huge an ask Nai.

My point is that Gameplay is already congruent with the game - every bit as congruent as RP. RP and GP are simply not congruent with each other, because each is based upon the core principles of the game ignored or downplayed by the other community. And because I'm a fan of my little bug-eyed Venn diagram today:


I can has affirmation of big blue circle in the SC, please? I could hardly care less about how Rule 4 is worded so long as that's the end result.

(Or in other words, I agree entirely with Ballotonia.)

Double post time!

I agree with the venn diagram Nai has put forth. And yes, Rule 4 should be all-inclusive to allow for both. Yet it is clear from that diagram that RP and GP are separate entities. We're pretty much in agreement of that there. Therefore, and this is just me playing devil's advocate here, why should we attempt to make one set of rules for two separate entities? Would it be better to make the rule more specific, like 'roleplay C&C rules' and 'gameplay C&C rules'? I mean, the more I think about this, it's like trying to fit a European plug in an American electrical socket - it's not going to work no matter how hard you try. It seems to me that we need an adapter. And adapters have two sides to them, so one can go into the other.

Why not try for that?

The thing is, that is what we are trying for. We're not saying that you HAVE to post in an IC system, just that the proposal sound like it came from the same body. The bridge that should connect everyone from all aspects of the game.

[NERVUN]

The way I see it, Rule 4 is the attempt to make that adapter between IC and OOC, so they have to use the same language despite their would-be intents.

The issue is that language is not really seemingly acceptable to either party. NERVUN of course already responded to this one, but one issue being that RPers who have different personalities from their nation's can't be separately condemned/commended without it impacting their RP (potentially; maybe not hugely, but it could be weird.). On the other hand, it becomes confusing and weird to try and C&C someone for behavior on the official forums.

So, of course, if Rule 4 were a programming language, then the simplest way to deal with both is to just make extensions that better support both things, rather than each side fighting one another for all eternity.

Since one can go tit-for-tat on every point and ultimately both sides can be wrong simultaneously, because the rule is supposed to be a bridge, not something 'owned' by one community over the other. As it already is, it is made to bridge things. It just... isn't working correctly yet.

Believe you me, we really WISH it was working correctly, but that's why we're here.

Note that I did hear of saying 'Forums' as being acceptable (as long as it's tied in with the nation name thing) but leads me to question. Would "Commends Metania for being a source of great art, as seen through the international forums" work? It seems vague enough that OOC people can see "The player behind the nation" as being the source, while the IC people see "A nation is a source of great art which is spread through the various international forums." If so, or if this is acceptable without much editing, perhaps all it takes to make a still-coherent commendation based on forum activities is a little thinking rather than epic lines of war-text over not being able to go "COMMENDS Mr. Metania for being on the forums and drawing purdy pictures."

I would say yes, that is entirely acceptable. It works great.

You know, I think I see a possible solution, but I have to talk with the other Mods. Let me bounce an idea and see what happens.

[Unibot]

Uni's suggestions are good ones, but they do fail to address the whole Part of the WA and allow all groups to make C&Cs that at least sound like they are coming from the same body. That said, I must admit that we haven't had a chance to talk about Uni's suggestions in depth due to the evil curse of RL. Ard is very busy right now so the talk for the Mods is going far, far slower than this thread.

Well I won't blame you on the RL thingy, fucking Real Life.. always getting in the way of NationStates, eh? Anyway, you've acknowledged somewhere in that post that all subcommunities have a different way of doing things, but you've failed to recognize that the sort of Post-Babel world (which here you're stating is a bad thing) is what the Security Council has reveled in. Regulars have enjoyed changing their dimension to suit the nominee, every week is a little different, it keeps you on your toes and makes you experience how other's play the game. C&C debates would be very boring indeed if they all followed the same sort of flow, and the same sort of uniform language and what not -- with just different names for the nominees. No one was complaining before this rule -- other than in the primordial SC threads -- about having to switch your dimension as a debater in a SC thread to accommodate the nominee and the thread, so why fix something that wasn't broken? And I don't see why our resolutions have to be uniform with the General Assembly, we already metagame for christ sakes. The Security Council is apart of the World Assembly because it is the thread between the world, virtual and roleplayed, and the General Assembly is apart of the World Assembly to improve the roleplayed world, which connects regional communities, nation statwankers and the most hardcore WA veteran together. These councils may be vastly different, but together they serve as an interconnection in NationStates that otherwise wouldn't happen. That is the uniformity.

I realize that Rule IV doesn't effect forum debates, but in the SC, what dimension the proposal is written is, generally affects what dimension the forum debate is in, and who the debate attracts (with different nominees come a barrage of newcomers who come and go). Lots of OOC posts are seen as cumbersome in a thread dedicated for a resolution that is strictly IC, and vice versa for an OOC resolution. That's the thing about the SC, it gets 'used' a lot, which is fine by most regulars, but you wouldn't know it unless you participate in the SC halls a lot. People come and go quite a bit, and they want to post and submit resolutions in what dimension they are familiar with the most, because they're only here because their friend or enema is being recognized by the SC, and their friend or enema typically shares their dimension.

---

I'm using 'dimension' as a catch-all phrase for describing, IC, OOC.. and other hybrid mixes of them which exist among various NationStates subcommunities. I hope you don't mind.

[Astarial]

Thank you for your verbage, seriously because I am still struggling to find out what gameplayers feel that they are missing out on. However... I do have a question for you guys, and a serious one, since I have been reading about how gameplayers ignore the forums and the actual nation part of the game, why then are you so concerned with how the SC writes its proposals for C&Cs?

If this sounds like belittling or attacking, I am sorry, but I am dead serious because I have just read a number of posts by gameplayers talking about how the let the rest of NS alone so I am very curious as to why this matter so much that the SC be allowed to say what it wants about the game.

Other than this Rule 4 hullabaloo, I don't hang out on the official forums. I've been playing since, what, 2004? 2005? and this is my fourth post.

So I guess I'm qualified to answer your question?

My duly elected WA delegate dutifully copies all resolutions, and posts them on our forums. We discuss, debate, and hold a vote. However the majority swings, that is how he votes. So I read and think about resolutions, and care which way they swing, even though I don't spend time in these forums.

The SC introduced something new - resolutions that I not only care about intellectually, but that also actually affect my game. Liberation resolutions can make or break a defense, and in C&Cs we found a way to honor players who have significant impact on our game - great diplomats, decorated soldiers, and so on. And I have an emotional investment in honoring (or dissing) those players who have earned it.

But I'm not the only one who wants to honor key players of my game. Other people want to too, and they might play different games, and because the SC is a body that ought to be open to all, I don't get to have my issues monopolize the queue.

I would, however, like to be able to understand the issues that do pertain to me, rather than having to decipher a style which is bewildering and confusing, along with digging through potential pages of thread, just to figure out what on earth Nai has done to deserve this specific commendation.

I don't care how the RP community writes their C&CS. I very, very much care how the GP community writes ours.

Every community should be able to Commend or Condemn their own members in a language which is clear and immediately understandable by members of that community.

Because let's face it, what other community cares?

[Unibot]

For what it's worth...

I sort of liked it before, where we could do IC vs OOC C&C's. I know the idea of reverting back to the way it was has been thoroughly defeated, but the way *that* was allowed for both types of C&C's. Perhaps I am a bit behind in these discussions, but for me at least, that was ideal. Wasn't perfect, but hey, things were much simpler and fluid.

What IC C&Cs of any significance were there? How much actual constructive IC involvement had actually developed in the SC? To what extent was the SC a clearly open and clearly multi-purpose? To my eyes there was a dramatic bias in use towards OOC and GP orientated resolutions and the IC involvement was peripheral and poorly supported.

Did you ever post an IC proposal? Did you ever try? You were free to do so, Urg. Some of us worked quite hard to produce this supposedly 'peripheral and poorly supported' crap.

For what it's worth...

I sort of liked it before, where we could do IC vs OOC C&C's. I know the idea of reverting back to the way it was has been thoroughly defeated, but the way *that* was allowed for both types of C&C's. Perhaps I am a bit behind in these discussions, but for me at least, that was ideal. Wasn't perfect, but hey, things were much simpler and fluid.

What IC C&Cs of any significance were there? How much actual constructive IC involvement had actually developed in the SC? To what extent was the SC a clearly open and clearly multi-purpose? To my eyes there was a dramatic bias in use towards OOC and GP orientated resolutions and the IC involvement was peripheral and poorly supported.

Again, for what it's worth, I remember a few C&C's here and there about IC nations, but initially they constituted mostly of fairly new nations trying to commend or condemn their friends. We just didn't have the IC representation initially, as those from the GA were ticked at the GP peeps coming in. Admittedly, we dominated the scene for a while. But balance was getting there. Kenny was condemned, Greater Nepal was condemned, The Joint Systems Alliance was commended, and there's a few others I might be missing. But, towards the end, we had that balance.

Old WAers weren't "ticked at the GP peeps coming in" they were unable to play a part of the game which fundamentally conflicted with the way they played the game.

Kenny's condemnation was a joke (in all senses of the word), and most of the other IC condemnations you've mentioned were extremely poor quality and not very well drafted. This was because there was a low level of involvement by people who played IC, because to their eyes the SC looked like an OOC body which dealt with GP concerns. There most certainly wasn't balance.

"Commend The Joint Systems Alliance" was not extremely poor quality.

Define quality, Urg. You clearly haven't spent enough time in a Security Council drafting thread to understand the logistical differences between creating a great GA resolution and a great SC resolution.

[Unibot]

Because let's face it, what other community cares?

Not to be a prick, because I agree with everything you wrote, but...

Generalities? Nation-Builders & Statwankers? .. just a few suggestions...