NATION

PASSWORD

Topid's sampler

A chamber dedicated to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Glen-Rhodes
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9016
Founded: Jun 25, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Glen-Rhodes » Mon Jul 12, 2010 5:41 pm

Kandarin wrote:Just saying "The Rejected Realms" (or "Lazarus", or "the Pacifics", or "the $DIRECTION Pacific"...) would surely be understandable by all.

This is much better.

User avatar
NERVUN
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 29321
Founded: Mar 24, 2005
Right-wing Utopia

Postby NERVUN » Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:31 pm

Kandarin wrote:Some food for thought when it comes to an IC rationale for "feeders": Real life is chock full of nicknames for places that are nonintuitive or obscure in origin, yet used widely. Over time, an assumed name can equal - or overshadow - the formal name of a place. Some such nicknames can achieve such prominence that media, governments and even international bodies will use them. Examples abound: The Beltway, The Twin Cities, The Big Apple, Big Ben, Il Duomo, etc. etc. One particularly relevant example that I found once was that a certain international body of nations that shall remain nameless regularly uses the term "the Holy Land" in its official communications. Many of the members of said body do not consider it to be a "holy land", nor necessarily even recognize the concept of "holy"...but still the term persists, because it is so popular with one vocal subset of membership. From a standpoint of trying to see the term through the lens of a fictional international body, "feeders" could easily be assumed to be one such nickname. That is what a large portion of the body's membership, for whatever reason, calls those places; the rest of it doesn't have to agree with the reason to allow the use of the term.

Personally, I think you got it right the first time with saying the Pacifics and if need be, WHICH Pacific we're talking about.
To those who feel, life is a tragedy. To those who think, it's a comedy.
"Men, today you'll be issued small trees. Do what you can for the emperor's glory." -Daistallia 2104 on bonsai charges in WWII
Science may provide the means while religion provides the motivation but humanity and humanity alone provides the vehicle -DaWoad

One-Stop Rules Shop, read it, love it, live by it. Getting Help Mod email: nervun@nationstates.net NSG Glossary
Add 10,145 to post count from Jolt: I have it from an unimpeachable source, that Dark Side cookies look like the Death Star. The other ones look like butterflies, or bunnies, or something.-Grave_n_Idle

Proud Member of FMGADHPAC. Join today!

User avatar
Ardchoille
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 9842
Founded: Apr 18, 2004
Democratic Socialists

Postby Ardchoille » Mon Jul 12, 2010 8:16 pm

Yooooou alllll misunderstoooood meeeeee! I am going to throw myself on teh ground and hold my breath until I DIE and then you'll all be sorry and it will serve you right because you misunderstoooood meeeee!

Just thought I'd provide a bit of drama -- we're getting far too rational here. :p

This is why I don't want to provide a list of Forbidden Words: because, as several folk have pointed out, in some contexts they shouldn't be forbidden. Like, "Todd McCloud was a major player in ..." induced the comment "so, we can say 'player', then?" (No, you can't when you mean "player of this game"; but you can use it metaphorically.)

So: I was objecting to "feeder" in the context raised way back, when someone said, "But what if someone was delegate to three of the feeders?" You couldn't be inside my head and know that was what I was dealing with, so, naturally, you read it as "never should the word 'feeder' cross your (proposal's) lips".

Okay: in the context I was thinking of, you shouldn't say "feeder" because it is unnecessary (since we have the tags) and uninformative (to many forumites). It's also a "saying the game while playing the game" term. But I agree with Kenny and Kandarin, you shouldn't need to say anything more than "@@Nationname@@ was delegate to [linked, tagged list of the feeders]". "Feeder" is a game term whose meaning is not immediately apparent -- look how often we get the "uh, what is a feeder?"query from newbies -- and that was the case before R4, too. If it's thought about carefully before submitting it, "clarity" should kill it before we get to "compliance".

In the "nation creation game, underlying verbal convention" context, the only description the game gives to the feeder regions is "region". Yet they are manifestly more than "a region", thanks to their coded "birthplace of nations" function, plus the no-founder function, plus the weighted-votes function.

See how I put "birthplace of nations" in quotes? That's because the rest of the sentence is naming game functions, but "birthplace of nations" is how the function operates when we're playing the game; I went metaphorical -- a little bit IC -- to describe what a game function does.

So, from where I'm standing, "feeder" is a strictly NS player term for a game function and therefore needs a workaround when it's in a proposal. The workaround is, simply, don't use the term, describe the function. So, picking up Travancore-Cochin's terms, "The Pacific, a region that feeds nations to other regions" is fine. But "The Pacific, a feeder," isn't.

Consider also that "feeder" is only one of the functions of a feeder region. Those of us outside a feeder use the term because that's all it is to us. Except when they're being something else. “The Pacific, in which new nations start out”; “The Pacific, from which new nations move to other regions”; “The Pacific, where political struggles are particularly intense” (if that’s true, of course, in the eyes of the writer); “The Pacific, which regularly votes to uphold the sovereignty of nations”.

Any one of these functions may be what you want to talk about: R4 requirements guide proposal writers to more accurate presentation.

@ Kandy, re "The Big Apple" and so on: Nice, nice. That's a beautiful piece of, uh, specialist argument. And if you want to say. "The Pacific, known to its natives as 'The Big Wahoonie'", who am I to stop you? Even, "The Pacific, known among its adherents as The Feeder" is okay -- politicking is what you're supposed to do in the SC. But if you go, "The Pacific, a feeder," I'll go, "I c wot u did there!" and ask for a minor rewrite.

@Bears Armed: metagaming, in the very precise way it's known in the GA, can't exist in the SC because of the questions the SC has to deal with. If you want to play in the SC, you have to do so in such a way that you can "see" some game activities that you normally can't in the GA. You have to start "seeing" in terms of nations and regions, not individual characters. That's why I keep going on about "SC IC". All players dedicated to one forum have to readjust in terms of other forums when they go there.

@ Sedge: no, it wouldn't be illegal to say a nation has moved around several regions. In RW terms, think of entry to the EU. Before a nation joins, it's in some non-EU area; after, it's moved into the EU. The way things are going, it's also possible to get kicked out of the EU. Or leave it. (Let's not start the "EU is an economic alliance" argument; that belongs in General.)

@ Ballotonia: The link, as I think you probably realised, was to a post in which I'd outlined the limits on discussing voting blocs. I referenced it because of my ruling that this was not to be considered a 3WB thread.

By saying "it's up to the first person to use X description" I'm saying "R4 gives you the outlines, figure out the details yourselves". And the thread stays open so people can raise aspects that they can't figure out. As seen above, Kenny, Kandarin and (insert player name here) all realised that, in most cases, the [region] and [nation] tags will get you out of this particular dilemma. But I'm going into detail about it in an effort to explain why some words are, and some words aren't, acceptable without any fudging.

@ Darkesia: You and your daughter seem to have entered into the movie with a certain amount of suspension of disbelief -- you'd "agreed" to a tale in which dragons existed, hearts could be shared, princes weren't constantly surrounded by security guards, etc. The movie-makers were negligent in not picking up on a movie event that would jar you out of that state. R4 is an attempt to reduce the number of jars in SC proposals.

(Re the black helicopters: they're a cultural meme. As Wiki says, "sometimes used to describe conspiracy theories in general". So maybe that's why Max didn't think they would be jarring in a politically and satirically oriented game.) /threadjack
Last edited by Ardchoille on Mon Jul 12, 2010 8:33 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Ideological Bulwark #35
The more scandalous charges were suppressed; the vicar of Christ was accused only of piracy, rape, sodomy, murder and incest. -- Edward Gibbon on the schismatic Pope John XXIII (1410–1415).

User avatar
Ballotonia
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5339
Founded: Antiquity
New York Times Democracy

Postby Ballotonia » Tue Jul 13, 2010 12:33 am

For C&C I'd expect "feeder" to be used as a term with political significance, not directed to a particular function in specific. Compare in RL the term "the G7 nations". I fully expect the actual UN to have no problem referring to G7 or G20 as a class of nations in any of their resolutions, without going into convulsions on whether or not that is properly officially defined and known to all who might read the resolution. Similarly, the feeder regions yield a political influence throughout the NS world which is recognized by them being in their own defined class of regions.

Ballotonia
"Een volk dat voor tirannen zwicht zal meer dan lijf en goed verliezen, dan dooft het licht…" -- H.M. van Randwijk

User avatar
Topid
Minister
 
Posts: 2820
Founded: Dec 29, 2008
Capitalizt

Postby Topid » Tue Jul 13, 2010 12:44 am

I'd really like Ard to reconsider the feeder decision. To go at this from a different angle, in Commend Sedge you ruled that FRA was okay to mention, and it is essentially a group of regions as well. The term Feeder is just a name for a group of regions, similar to the FRA.

Yes, we could just say, the Pacifics, but that isn't the term we feel most comfortable with or that most people would use. And I think there should be as small of a disconnect as possible when it comes to what readers would say and what authors can say, because the resolutions will just make more sense and will seem less like rhetoric.
Last edited by Topid on Tue Jul 13, 2010 12:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
Founder, Pacifica

User avatar
Romanar
Diplomat
 
Posts: 624
Founded: Feb 15, 2006
Corporate Police State

Postby Romanar » Tue Jul 13, 2010 12:51 am

The problem I have with "The Pacifics" is that it doesn't distinguish between the Feeders and any other "pacific" regions such as The Central Pacific. "Feeder" seems much less ambiguous.

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18403
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Tue Jul 13, 2010 2:44 am

Kandarin wrote:One particularly relevant example that I found once was that a certain international body of nations that shall remain nameless regularly uses the term "the Holy Land" in its official communications. Many of the members of said body do not consider it to be a "holy land", nor necessarily even recognize the concept of "holy"...but still the term persists, because it is so popular with one vocal subset of membership.

And maybe because it save them from having to choose between 'Israel' and 'Palestine' as the answer to the question of what that land is called?
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
Travancore-Cochin
Envoy
 
Posts: 335
Founded: Jun 25, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Travancore-Cochin » Tue Jul 13, 2010 4:37 am

Ardchoille wrote:So: I was objecting to "feeder" in the context raised way back, when someone said, "But what if someone was delegate to three of the feeders?" You couldn't be inside my head and know that was what I was dealing with, so, naturally, you read it as "never should the word 'feeder' cross your (proposal's) lips".

Okay: in the context I was thinking of, you shouldn't say "feeder" because it is unnecessary (since we have the tags) and uninformative (to many forumites). It's also a "saying the game while playing the game" term. But I agree with Kenny and Kandarin, you shouldn't need to say anything more than "@@Nationname@@ was delegate to [linked, tagged list of the feeders]". "Feeder" is a game term whose meaning is not immediately apparent -- look how often we get the "uh, what is a feeder?"query from newbies -- and that was the case before R4, too. If it's thought about carefully before submitting it, "clarity" should kill it before we get to "compliance".

In the "nation creation game, underlying verbal convention" context, the only description the game gives to the feeder regions is "region". Yet they are manifestly more than "a region", thanks to their coded "birthplace of nations" function, plus the no-founder function, plus the weighted-votes function.

See how I put "birthplace of nations" in quotes? That's because the rest of the sentence is naming game functions, but "birthplace of nations" is how the function operates when we're playing the game; I went metaphorical -- a little bit IC -- to describe what a game function does.

So, from where I'm standing, "feeder" is a strictly NS player term for a game function and therefore needs a workaround when it's in a proposal. The workaround is, simply, don't use the term, describe the function. So, picking up Travancore-Cochin's terms, "The Pacific, a region that feeds nations to other regions" is fine. But "The Pacific, a feeder," isn't.

Consider also that "feeder" is only one of the functions of a feeder region. Those of us outside a feeder use the term because that's all it is to us. Except when they're being something else. “The Pacific, in which new nations start out”; “The Pacific, from which new nations move to other regions”; “The Pacific, where political struggles are particularly intense” (if that’s true, of course, in the eyes of the writer); “The Pacific, which regularly votes to uphold the sovereignty of nations”.


Okay, so if I'm getting this right, then this is more of a problem of clarity/style than of compliance. So, what if, as Naivetry pointed out here, in the context of a proposal, we define what a "feeder" is expressly?

Like,
DEFINING a "feeder" as any one of the five major regions The Pacific, The East Pacific, The West Pacific, The North Pacific and The South Pacific

or something similar?
Last edited by Travancore-Cochin on Tue Jul 13, 2010 4:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Ardchoille
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 9842
Founded: Apr 18, 2004
Democratic Socialists

Postby Ardchoille » Tue Jul 13, 2010 7:03 am

Topid wrote:I'd really like Ard to reconsider the feeder decision. To go at this from a different angle, in Commend Sedge you ruled that FRA was okay to mention, and it is essentially a group of regions as well. The term Feeder is just a name for a group of regions, similar to the FRA.

Yes, we could just say, the Pacifics, but that isn't the term we feel most comfortable with or that most people would use. And I think there should be as small of a disconnect as possible when it comes to what readers would say and what authors can say, because the resolutions will just make more sense and will seem less like rhetoric.


Topid, just to clarify why that isn't the same situation as Commend Sedge: the FRA is a grouping that was made by regions, so it's a legitimate organisation to refer to when condemning or commending what a nation or region does. I'd compare it to, say, NATO, SEATO, the Commonwealth, ANZUS -- or the G7 nations and the G20 nations -- organisations deliberately entered into and maintained for economic, military, cultural, whatever, reasons.

The feeder regions are feeders because the game made them feeders and the game keeps them feeders. Calling feeders "a group of regions" in a proposal sense is like suggesting that all nations on a particular line of latitude or longitude deliberately chose to come together as a group.

That's by-the-bye, though. Getting back to "feeders" in proposals: you don't have to say "the Pacifics". You can either link to the specific feeder region{s), or you can say what particular aspect of the feeders it is that joins them together for the purposes of your proposal. Why are that imaginary delegate's achievements so striking? Is it just because they're "regions where nations begin"? Is it because of the intensity of their politics, or their size? You'd have to say why it's more noteworthy to be delegate of five feeders than delegate of five other regions. (Did we have five, or three? N/M).

EDIT: T-C, I didn't pick up that one when Naivetry said it because I wanted to think about it. I'd be nuts to say "defining" clauses are never needed. But I think that "defining 'feeders' as (list of feeders)" isn't a definition, it's just a list. Like defining "dogs" by listing "Rottweilers, Alsatians, Cocker Spaniels" ... You'd need something more along the lines of "Defining [list regions] as the five regions where new nations take their first steps" or "which feed new nations into the NationStates world".

When Nerv and I talk about "fudging" or "blurring", we're still talking about using the dual-purpose terms for descriptions of what the nations or regions are doing. Suppose we were in that imaginary-delegate proposal, and you'd decided to use only links, not a "defining" clause. You'd still have to do some fudging -- say, something along the lines of, "Recognising that @@nationname@@ has served as delegate to five regions, [link, link, link, link and link]; Noting that these regions make unusual demands on their delegates, by requiring them to (description of onerous life of feeder delegate); Believing that this is because they are the regions from which new nations take their first steps (or whatever description seems best to the author) ...".

I know "feeder" is the term with which Gameplayers are most familiar, but it's a game term, and not familiar to those who play a different part of the game. "Scorinator" is familiar to Sports forum players, but it's their "game term"; they'd have to explain what it does if they wanted to commend someone for having a specially good one. "DEAT" might be a term in the "moderator game", but I wouldn't expect to be able to Condemn a nation for returning after it was DEATed. (Actually, that'd probably be out under Rule 2, anyway. Rats.)
Last edited by Ardchoille on Tue Jul 13, 2010 7:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
Ideological Bulwark #35
The more scandalous charges were suppressed; the vicar of Christ was accused only of piracy, rape, sodomy, murder and incest. -- Edward Gibbon on the schismatic Pope John XXIII (1410–1415).

User avatar
Todd McCloud
Senator
 
Posts: 4025
Founded: Oct 11, 2006
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Todd McCloud » Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:20 am

Part of me can't believe we've spent almost two pages arguing over when we can and cannot use "feeder". It's baffling.

The other part of me believes there is a valid point here. These nebulous 'well, you can use it here, but not here' type of rulings is what's got everyone confused. It turns rule 4 from a rule into a simple opinion. And it will always be an opinion if it is continued to be used in this amorphous, nebulous state. I can see it now. Every C&C proposed here will have the inevitable "this part goes against rule 4" "no it doesn't" "yes it does, according to _____." "No, read this thing on page 24 of a juggernaut of a thread, it clearly says this!" Essentially, what this all boils down to is the arguments spawning from this will have to be cleared by a mod. And while I like the idea that there's a thread created with the purpose to actively search for a mod in the community, I'm just not seeing how this is going to be feasible.

See, we, the gameplayers, want something concrete. Whenever we see a cliff or a ledge to hold onto, we grab at jello - that amorphous goop that just keeps us grasping and looking for other things to hold onto.

Now, as far as feeders go, I can see just naming the pacific regions, TRR, Laz, etc would probably easily replace this notion. But I personally believe the term should be available. It's like a nickname - simply calling it in the matters described in an earlier post by Ard is just more confusing. Why give it another name? When I say feeder to any player who's had any business on the forums or what not, they know what that is. And while yeah, some new nations might not get it at first, really, we get just as many of them who don't know what ejecting and/or banning is - they think they've done something wrong. That excuse does not bode well with me.

In general, I am not a fan of replacing well-known gameplay terms with relatively unknown "pro rule 4" terms. I think it's just downright confusing and unnecessary. Feeder, to me, is better than "transit region". I don't know what that means. Can a region ICly be a transit region? I'm not going to get into that debate. All I know is this is silly to me. Why are we doing this? Why are we spending two pages on the same topic if both sides are probably not going to give in on this? Why are we replacing well-known terms with terms that are even more confusing?

I almost feel like we're on an episode of Hogan's Heroes. "The code for feeder is transit region. Don't say he or she. Motherbird to Goldilocks, over and out." My God, I only hope one side can truly understand the other. And why are we being subject to these code words? We are having to accomodate to one side, instead of being able to use our terminology that has been canon for years now, regardless if it's an "official" word or not.
I wrote a book, and another one is on the way!

"Your uniform doesn't seem to fit. You're much too alive in it."

"You must be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi
"The worst prison would be a closed heart." - Pope John Paul II
Vekaiyu's Wiki Page | Ikrisia Levinile's Wiki Page | Vekaiyu & Kelssek co-hosted the XII Summer Olympiad

User avatar
Sedgistan
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 27332
Founded: Oct 20, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Sedgistan » Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:46 am

Ardchoille wrote:@ Sedge: no, it wouldn't be illegal to say a nation has moved around several regions. In RW terms, think of entry to the EU. Before a nation joins, it's in some non-EU area; after, it's moved into the EU. The way things are going, it's also possible to get kicked out of the EU. Or leave it. (Let's not start the "EU is an economic alliance" argument; that belongs in General.)


Ok, but I'm still confused about what Rule 4 really is. Is it supposed to change the language of proposals so that it could be understood by an RL nation (hence no use of the word feeder) - and if so, why is the term "hidden passwords" left in your version of Todd's Condemn Macedon, since hidden passwords obviously mean nothing to RL nations?

Alternatively, is it supposed to be understood by NS nations (which was what was discussed a couple of weeks ago, but no longer seems to be the case) - in which case moving regions can be justified because thats what nations actually do in NS, not because its something that RL nations could do (your reference to the EU)? Additionally, the word feeder really is one that is understandable to NSers across communities (presumably why its in the OSRS) - you say a new nation wouldn't understand it - but there's always going to be things about the game that a newcomer won't understand. If we're saying that Rule 4 has to make resolutions understandable to NS nations, then 'feeder' should be ok.

Finally, a question that has not really been mentioned, but really bothers me - are we going to apply these same standards to Liberation resolutions? Presumably, the answer will be yes, because otherwise the whole point of Rule 4 (making the WA sound like its an international body of nations) is moot.

User avatar
Travancore-Cochin
Envoy
 
Posts: 335
Founded: Jun 25, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Travancore-Cochin » Tue Jul 13, 2010 1:42 pm

Ardchoille wrote:EDIT: T-C, I didn't pick up that one when Naivetry said it because I wanted to think about it. I'd be nuts to say "defining" clauses are never needed. But I think that "defining 'feeders' as (list of feeders)" isn't a definition, it's just a list. Like defining "dogs" by listing "Rottweilers, Alsatians, Cocker Spaniels" ... You'd need something more along the lines of "Defining [list regions] as the five regions where new nations take their first steps" or "which feed new nations into the NationStates world".

Regardless of whether it's a definition or a simple list, if we include such a clause somewhere in the proposal, then we could refer to any of these regions as a "feeder" from that point on, couldn't we?

Because that way, it still will be legible to anyone reading it - newbie, RPer, GPer, Generalite etc. and so on. GPers and others familiar with the term can read it in that context, and the people who don't know can read it as "any one of the five major regions [link, link, link, link and link]".

User avatar
Metania
Diplomat
 
Posts: 657
Founded: Dec 31, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Metania » Tue Jul 13, 2010 2:12 pm

This discussion reminds me of a problem I still have with rule 4: The use of IC and OOC, and it, at times, pretending that everyone uses the same version of these.

I tried to squish these out of it in my suggestions not because I was intending to allow OOC resolutions, but rather trying to define what was considered 'Moderator Legalese OOC' and 'Moderator Legalese IC' so that nobody would be confused.

Unfortunately it seems to be ballooning in size into a sort of weird case of 'this word is allowed, but not this one' even without the so-called word list.

Maybe it is about time to replace the words OOC and IC in Rule IV with simple, one-or-two sentence things which say the same thing as far as the mods are concerned? I'm... not sure what OOC or IC as terms do for it currently, other than allow for confusion. I understand they have these specific meanings to the mods, but... what if my version of IC or OOC involves people calling nations "Players behind the nation"? What if my OOC is "anything which refers to a nation as a nation?"

The other extensions explain it further, but to the would-be contrarian nation, this would just make Rule 4 a self-contradiction, which, depending on the person, results in either them breaking it, or not breaking it due to luck, or getting in massive debates that last forever about what OOC and IC mean.

Work would be done to correct said nation's opinion, but why should that be a part of the process? Wouldn't it be easier to just say verbatim rather than using acronyms not everyone knows, uses, or has the same understanding of?
Determination Overcomes Adversity
Jul

User avatar
NERVUN
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 29321
Founded: Mar 24, 2005
Right-wing Utopia

Postby NERVUN » Tue Jul 13, 2010 4:40 pm

Todd McCloud wrote:Part of me can't believe we've spent almost two pages arguing over when we can and cannot use "feeder". It's baffling.

The other part of me believes there is a valid point here. These nebulous 'well, you can use it here, but not here' type of rulings is what's got everyone confused. It turns rule 4 from a rule into a simple opinion. And it will always be an opinion if it is continued to be used in this amorphous, nebulous state. I can see it now. Every C&C proposed here will have the inevitable "this part goes against rule 4" "no it doesn't" "yes it does, according to _____." "No, read this thing on page 24 of a juggernaut of a thread, it clearly says this!" Essentially, what this all boils down to is the arguments spawning from this will have to be cleared by a mod. And while I like the idea that there's a thread created with the purpose to actively search for a mod in the community, I'm just not seeing how this is going to be feasible.

See, we, the gameplayers, want something concrete. Whenever we see a cliff or a ledge to hold onto, we grab at jello - that amorphous goop that just keeps us grasping and looking for other things to hold onto.

To comment, yes, it IS nebulous... right now. Because it is being shapped, right now. It's the same as when [violet] came in and said "Max has decided to create C&Cs for the WA". No one knew what those were or what they would look like. The whole point if this kind of thread is to build the framework (Rule 4) YOU GUYS (Not us, the players) will build the actual language that will be used.

But, for you 'need to be cleared by a Mod', not really. At first, there's going to be tussles, but as it goes on, the SC will develop its own memory and the SC itself will be able to make the judgements, we will only get called in on areas that are very gray. Or to give you an anology, were the Mods always called in to judge who was native and who was not during a raid/defender action or after playing for a while was the community able to judge fairly well for the bulk and it was only every so often that a getting help request was sent? Also, I would like to note that the GA has been doing the same for a while. They comment with each other and it's only so often that they ask for a mod opinion, it does work.

Now, as far as feeders go, I can see just naming the pacific regions, TRR, Laz, etc would probably easily replace this notion. But I personally believe the term should be available. It's like a nickname - simply calling it in the matters described in an earlier post by Ard is just more confusing. Why give it another name? When I say feeder to any player who's had any business on the forums or what not, they know what that is. And while yeah, some new nations might not get it at first, really, we get just as many of them who don't know what ejecting and/or banning is - they think they've done something wrong. That excuse does not bode well with me.

In general, I am not a fan of replacing well-known gameplay terms with relatively unknown "pro rule 4" terms. I think it's just downright confusing and unnecessary. Feeder, to me, is better than "transit region". I don't know what that means. Can a region ICly be a transit region? I'm not going to get into that debate. All I know is this is silly to me. Why are we doing this? Why are we spending two pages on the same topic if both sides are probably not going to give in on this? Why are we replacing well-known terms with terms that are even more confusing?

The thing is though, it is a gameplayer word. I didn't know what it meant till I became a Mod and had seen it used for something. So it was 5 years for me without ever having encountered it. It would be no different from me saying "Well, EVERYONE knows what I mean when I say 'sauce', so I should be able to commend The Cat-Tribes for his wonderful use of sauces."

I almost feel like we're on an episode of Hogan's Heroes. "The code for feeder is transit region. Don't say he or she. Motherbird to Goldilocks, over and out." My God, I only hope one side can truly understand the other. And why are we being subject to these code words? We are having to accomodate to one side, instead of being able to use our terminology that has been canon for years now, regardless if it's an "official" word or not.

It's been explained in the Rule 4 thread why.

Travancore-Cochin wrote:
Ardchoille wrote:EDIT: T-C, I didn't pick up that one when Naivetry said it because I wanted to think about it. I'd be nuts to say "defining" clauses are never needed. But I think that "defining 'feeders' as (list of feeders)" isn't a definition, it's just a list. Like defining "dogs" by listing "Rottweilers, Alsatians, Cocker Spaniels" ... You'd need something more along the lines of "Defining [list regions] as the five regions where new nations take their first steps" or "which feed new nations into the NationStates world".

Regardless of whether it's a definition or a simple list, if we include such a clause somewhere in the proposal, then we could refer to any of these regions as a "feeder" from that point on, couldn't we?

Because that way, it still will be legible to anyone reading it - newbie, RPer, GPer, Generalite etc. and so on. GPers and others familiar with the term can read it in that context, and the people who don't know can read it as "any one of the five major regions [link, link, link, link and link]".

My opinion is that it would work. If you wrote it kind of like @@nationname@@ having seized power illegally in [link]North Pacific, West Pacific, Sideways Pacific, and Upsidedown Pacific[link], collectively known as the "feeders" and has replaced the governments of the feeders with one choces at random by a cow plop"

Metania wrote:This discussion reminds me of a problem I still have with rule 4: The use of IC and OOC, and it, at times, pretending that everyone uses the same version of these.

I tried to squish these out of it in my suggestions not because I was intending to allow OOC resolutions, but rather trying to define what was considered 'Moderator Legalese OOC' and 'Moderator Legalese IC' so that nobody would be confused.

Unfortunately it seems to be ballooning in size into a sort of weird case of 'this word is allowed, but not this one' even without the so-called word list.

Maybe it is about time to replace the words OOC and IC in Rule IV with simple, one-or-two sentence things which say the same thing as far as the mods are concerned? I'm... not sure what OOC or IC as terms do for it currently, other than allow for confusion. I understand they have these specific meanings to the mods, but... what if my version of IC or OOC involves people calling nations "Players behind the nation"? What if my OOC is "anything which refers to a nation as a nation?"

The other extensions explain it further, but to the would-be contrarian nation, this would just make Rule 4 a self-contradiction, which, depending on the person, results in either them breaking it, or not breaking it due to luck, or getting in massive debates that last forever about what OOC and IC mean.

Work would be done to correct said nation's opinion, but why should that be a part of the process? Wouldn't it be easier to just say verbatim rather than using acronyms not everyone knows, uses, or has the same understanding of?

If it helps, we're currently talking about that. Right now what we're hoping for is the creation of my "new language" or what Ard calls SC IC.
To those who feel, life is a tragedy. To those who think, it's a comedy.
"Men, today you'll be issued small trees. Do what you can for the emperor's glory." -Daistallia 2104 on bonsai charges in WWII
Science may provide the means while religion provides the motivation but humanity and humanity alone provides the vehicle -DaWoad

One-Stop Rules Shop, read it, love it, live by it. Getting Help Mod email: nervun@nationstates.net NSG Glossary
Add 10,145 to post count from Jolt: I have it from an unimpeachable source, that Dark Side cookies look like the Death Star. The other ones look like butterflies, or bunnies, or something.-Grave_n_Idle

Proud Member of FMGADHPAC. Join today!

User avatar
Ardchoille
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 9842
Founded: Apr 18, 2004
Democratic Socialists

Postby Ardchoille » Tue Jul 13, 2010 6:15 pm

Sorry, folks, my NS access is going to be patchy for the next two days, as I'll be out of town; ie, I'm not going to have time for detailed replies.

This will no doubt be a Good Thing, as I'm getting to the stage where the conversation (with me, anyway) seems to go, "We'd like a list of words we can't say": "Well, let's not make a Totally Forbidden list, but in most cases you shouldn't say [this one]. Here's why"; "Oh, no, [that one] can't go on the list, pick another one."

When I say that, I'm expecting you to look at the "why" and apply it to words as they come up while you're writing proposals. The "why" I'm using is not "because it's used in Gameplay", because the SC is not for Gameplayers alone; the "why", from my point of view, is that this is a nation simulation game with an underlying vocabulary that some posters have called "nation-ish". I thought Nai's explanation, which I abbreviate to "saying while playing", would help you decide for yourselves.

But if you want a list, what would you put on it, and why? As Nerv says, we're in the act of creating an SC "language". I don't think either of us really expect it to come together right here, right now, in this thread; I agree with Nerv's post above, describing how it could be worked out from applications to individual cases. But maybe it will help mutual understanding if you -- as in "Gameplayers" -- clarify what you're working from.

I've tried very hard to avoid using the term "Gameplayer IC", since it appears to me that there are even more definitions of it than there are of "forum IC" and none of them can be pinned down to a specific usage (like, there's no Gameplay equivalents of the differences that mark II IC, GA IC, Storefront IC, Sports IC, NS IC, etc). But I have heard "some form of Gameplay IC" used as a description of what Rule 4 is about. So I'd appreciate it if you could answer whatever of the following make sense (ie, if it's even possible to ask these questions):

  • Are there any words that you can't use in (your version of) Gameplay IC?
  • If yes, what are they?
  • Is the Liberation category's language IC?
  • If yes, what other terms would not be used in that form of IC? If no, are there any terms you couldn't use while writing like that?
  • If you can, please explain your answers in terms of NS being a nation-simulation game with an underlying nation-simulation vocabulary -- like, how do you equate what you've said with what several posters have called "nation-ish" terms?

If you're planning to post a rant along the lines of "See, this just shows why we shouldn't have Rule 4", don't bother. The basic concept of Rule 4 is not going away. This thread is about how it works. Also, if you have re-writes of it in mind, please don't post them in this thread; use the other one.

Forumites who are trying to stay in the loop should read this and this.[EDIT]I understand that the NSWIki entry is Nai's work, too.[/EDIT] They may or may not be the stance of all Gameplayers. (From what I, as an outsider, can see, Nai seems to be at one end of the IC spectrum, Topid at the other, but maybe that's not their view.)
(And please don't encourage Nerv to make sauce-y jokes, or I'll have to dob him in to General. :D )
Last edited by Ardchoille on Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:57 am, edited 2 times in total.
Ideological Bulwark #35
The more scandalous charges were suppressed; the vicar of Christ was accused only of piracy, rape, sodomy, murder and incest. -- Edward Gibbon on the schismatic Pope John XXIII (1410–1415).

User avatar
Omigodtheykilledkenny
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5614
Founded: Mar 14, 2005
Capitalizt

Postby Omigodtheykilledkenny » Tue Jul 13, 2010 7:07 pm

Ardchoille wrote:I understand that the NSWIki entry is Nai's work, too.

It is not. Nai has endorsed it, however.
Omigodtheykilledkenny FAQ | "The Biggest Sovereigntist IN THE WORLD" - Chester Pearson

User avatar
Ardchoille
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 9842
Founded: Apr 18, 2004
Democratic Socialists

Postby Ardchoille » Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:55 am

Thanks, Kenny, I'll strikethru that.
Last edited by Ardchoille on Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
Ideological Bulwark #35
The more scandalous charges were suppressed; the vicar of Christ was accused only of piracy, rape, sodomy, murder and incest. -- Edward Gibbon on the schismatic Pope John XXIII (1410–1415).

User avatar
Darkesia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 744
Founded: Mar 01, 2005
Capitalizt

Postby Darkesia » Wed Jul 14, 2010 4:00 am

* Are there any words that you can't use in (your version of) Gameplay IC?
* If yes, what are they?

Yes. Words like : "You )&^@$%^**&^!!" Or references to RL family or personal situations (with possible exception being Neenee and Zorn because Thomas belongs to NS as surely as any child could.)
* Is the Liberation category's language IC?
* If yes, what other terms would not be used in that form of IC? If no, are there any terms you couldn't use while writing like that?


Yes, absolutely it is IC. If it wasn't it would read something like this : Take the password down from RegionA because there is a group of people who want to take it over for their side.
The whole concept of counter invasion being called Liberations grew out of the propaganda era of the ADN vs NPO. How can that be anything but IC? It's as IC as The Pacific's near beatification of Francos Spain, or The West Pacific's discriminatory policies against marsupials.

See above for the things I wouldn't say. Just don't make it personal and it's all good.
* If you can, please explain your answers in terms of NS being a nation-simulation game with an underlying nation-simulation vocabulary -- like, how do you equate what you've said with what several posters have called "nation-ish" terms?


Honestly I can't. I don't play NS as a nation simulation game. I play it as a political simulation game. The only times I may reference Darkesia as a nation rather than a character, is when I'm bored and posting the rankings. For example, I usually explain my poor showing in the auto industry as difficulty in designing a chocolate engine that doesn't melt once started, or something like that.

To me, membership in the WA serves only as a source of political power inside my region and in inter-regional politics.

(incidentally, I, Teri, don't like chocolate near as much as one might think. But that's gameplay IC too.)
Blackbird wrote:Francoism is to fascism as Marxism is to peanut butter.

Greater Moldavi wrote:If I didn't say things like that then I wouldn't be...well me.

Katganistan wrote:I imagine it's the rabid crotch-seeking ninja attack weasels. Very hard to train, so you don't see them in use in many places.

User avatar
Ballotonia
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5339
Founded: Antiquity
New York Times Democracy

Postby Ballotonia » Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:36 am

Ardchoille wrote:But I have heard "some form of Gameplay IC" used as a description of what Rule 4 is about. So I'd appreciate it if you could answer whatever of the following make sense (ie, if it's even possible to ask these questions):

  • Are there any words that you can't use in (your version of) Gameplay IC?
  • If yes, what are they?
  • Is the Liberation category's language IC?
  • If yes, what other terms would not be used in that form of IC? If no, are there any terms you couldn't use while writing like that?
  • If you can, please explain your answers in terms of NS being a nation-simulation game with an underlying nation-simulation vocabulary -- like, how do you equate what you've said with what several posters have called "nation-ish" terms?


First of all, I have an issue with the question due to the insistence on applying IC (In-Character) and OOC (Out Of Character) terminology at all. There IS no character to play, so the whole distinction is moot.
@Darkesia: When politicians in RL use propaganda to promote their agenda, do we say that politician is engaging in "IC Behavior" ? No, it's just the way politics work (sadly). When an ambassador in RL makes a formal statement on behalf of the government he/she represents, that's not "IC" behavior is it? (with "OOC" being that ambassador's personal life with partner and kids)

The distinction I'd make is "Formal" vs "Informal". When an Ambassador of a region (and at this point one should note that person is actually representing the group of people in the other region, it's not pretend. In Gameplay one cannot for instance be an Ambassador on behalf of a non-existing region.) makes a formal statement it is different from the informal bantering of the same Ambassador. The latter is more done as an individual and not as a representative. At no point is that "IC" as I do not make up a region which doesn't actually exist in the game and then pretend to represent it. The region is actually there, and I've actually been named Ambassador by that region's government (which is actually governing the actual region, in as far as we can appropriately call it a government within the confines of the game since there's ofcourse very limited power over the people whose nations reside within the region).

So, on to your questions... in Formal Gameplay there really is no list of words one cannot use, but a minimal formal tone in the words one chooses is definitely expected. An Ambassador who curses in formal communication really diminishes the esteem of the region he/she represents. Then either that Ambassador gets replaced, or the entire region is regarded as consisting of people (!) who lack proper class and who probably aren't too intelligent or reliable. And for clarity: that's a determination of the kind of people who are sitting behind their computers playing the game, not some sort of abstract imaginary characters made up as part of playing the game.

I would regard the SC Liberation category to be Formal, just like the C&C category. When sending out a formal communique minimal standards are expected to be upheld. All OOC wording can be used, references to anything and everything, even to RL stuff outside the game, but the wording would be expected to be appropriately decent. So no non-serious stuff like limericks or such, since the region one represents would hence publicly be seen as a group of utter idiots (at the very least, by me ;) ).

Darkesia referred to NS as a 'political simulation game'. But, since its all OOC, what's the simulation? To me it's real politics between real people. It's about their actual relations. Note this is also where a division in Gameplay is, which is directly related to the whole 'Duality' debate. If one is pretending to be a character instead of being oneself, one can never be deemed reliable in politics, and as such the character one 'plays' is immoral by the very nature of it being (supposedly) non-real (seriously, have you ever heard a RL politician state 'Hey, I'm just pretending to be a Socialist!'). I see it as an 'RP excuse' for people to get away with doing bad things while saying 'but... but... that wasn't me, it was just the imaginary character I play!' Considering the wording I choose, it should come as no surprise where I personally stand in that debate: I hold people personally responsible for the bad things they do in Gameplay, and reject any reference to "IC" as just a poor excuse for their own bad behavior.

Ballotonia
Last edited by Ballotonia on Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Een volk dat voor tirannen zwicht zal meer dan lijf en goed verliezen, dan dooft het licht…" -- H.M. van Randwijk

User avatar
Romanar
Diplomat
 
Posts: 624
Founded: Feb 15, 2006
Corporate Police State

Postby Romanar » Wed Jul 14, 2010 6:13 am

Ardchoille wrote:I've tried very hard to avoid using the term "Gameplayer IC", since it appears to me that there are even more definitions of it than there are of "forum IC" and none of them can be pinned down to a specific usage (like, there's no Gameplay equivalents of the differences that mark II IC, GA IC, Storefront IC, Sports IC, NS IC, etc). But I have heard "some form of Gameplay IC" used as a description of what Rule 4 is about. So I'd appreciate it if you could answer whatever of the following make sense (ie, if it's even possible to ask these questions):

  • Are there any words that you can't use in (your version of) Gameplay IC?
  • If yes, what are they?
  • Is the Liberation category's language IC?
  • If yes, what other terms would not be used in that form of IC? If no, are there any terms you couldn't use while writing like that?
  • If you can, please explain your answers in terms of NS being a nation-simulation game with an underlying nation-simulation vocabulary -- like, how do you equate what you've said with what several posters have called "nation-ish" terms?


I don't think there are any "forbidden" words. I think there should be SOME maturity (we are supposed to be representing nations afterall), but based on RL politicians, the bar is fairly low. :p

IC vs OOC is a little tricky. RP is clearly IC, but Gameplay could be either. Some people act as evil tyrants; I regard that as IC behavior (unless the player behind the nation is really a power-hungry tyrant bent on conquest :lol: ). Other people just play themselves and treat the nation name as just a screenname. Liberation is clearly Gameplay, and doesn't really fit well into Nation-Based RP (real nations don't have passwords). C&Cs COULD be more nation-based, though there are problems (which have already been mentioned ad nausium (to tired to spell rite) )

Just my 2 cents/mindless bable.

User avatar
Travancore-Cochin
Envoy
 
Posts: 335
Founded: Jun 25, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Travancore-Cochin » Wed Jul 14, 2010 7:42 am

Ballotonia wrote:All OOC wording can be used, references to anything and everything, even to RL stuff outside the game, but the wording would be expected to be appropriately decent.

I don't think that would be legal, even without Rule 4. There was a mod ruling that no SC proposal may reference the real real world. Ard made the ruling, IIRC.

I'm opposed to extending Rule 4 to Liberations. Already a lot of people don't understand what a Liberation does (going by the TGs I received while campaigning for Liberate Free Thought), so if ambiguous wording is made the norm, that's just asking for total confusion on a large scale. People will start ignoring them as they do to C&Cs.

User avatar
Darkesia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 744
Founded: Mar 01, 2005
Capitalizt

Postby Darkesia » Wed Jul 14, 2010 7:43 am

Let me just interject that Ballotonia's argument that he plays NS as if it was real life explains why he was never deeply involved in the NPO or raiding or espionage etc. I have made the observation that "old school" defenders seem to generally fall into the same category as Ballotonia. They believe that if you portray yourself as an evil tyrant bent on destruction, you must be at the very least immoral because you aren't being honest about yourself.

I fall into the other category. I play NS as a game; A political simulation game that has no real consequence. Yes, regions exist. However, no matter how involved you are in a regional government or how much you have invested in a treaty, none of it is real. It's all just words on a screen. This explains why I drifted away from the defenders and toward raiders/invaders and heavily stylized regional governments like the NPO, PRP and The Empire.

Examples...

Let me quote myself a little. Then you decide if it's gameplay IC (as I think it is) or OOC (as Ballotonia thinks it is.) Hint: There is no right or wrong answer. And that seems to be at the root of most of the trouble with R4.

*coughs*

May I have your attention, please!

The Darkesian Committee on Chocolaty Ministerial Appointments has concluded its first backroom political deal and hereby makes it's first Ministerial appointment.

From this moment forward <a href='http://nationstates.net/nation=Unholy Gnostic' target='_blank'>Unholy Gnostic</a> shall be named TWP's Chocolaty Minister of Indeedery whose sole job will be to ensure the word "indeed" appears on the RMB a all times.

To facilitate the TWP Secret Police's ability to track job performance, the word "indeed" is hereby banned for use on the RMB of The West Pacific by any nation other than the Chocolaty Minister of Indeedery.

Please note: Any complaints concerning the word ban or the Minister's job performance should be directed to the Complaint Department located in the Chocolaty Ministry of Executions and Disappearances.

Thank you for your time.


Note two things: It was an appointment which UG took seriously and I have no idea how to fix the weird code stuff that shows up there.

And currently appearing on our RMB...

48 minutes ago
The Chocolate Loving Paradise of Darkesia

I don't get the whole Lady Gaga thing. But if it's what makes you smile, it can't be all bad.

*stares, in a predatory manner at the chocolate covered Eli*

Hello, Eli. *smiles* I do like Wicked Wednesdays.
Last edited by Darkesia on Wed Jul 14, 2010 7:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
Blackbird wrote:Francoism is to fascism as Marxism is to peanut butter.

Greater Moldavi wrote:If I didn't say things like that then I wouldn't be...well me.

Katganistan wrote:I imagine it's the rabid crotch-seeking ninja attack weasels. Very hard to train, so you don't see them in use in many places.

User avatar
Ballotonia
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5339
Founded: Antiquity
New York Times Democracy

Postby Ballotonia » Wed Jul 14, 2010 8:29 am

Darkesia, I regard your example to be Roleplay because there is no such thing as chocolate in the game. There's also no construct in the game which functions in a manner which could be closely approximated by Real World chocolate.

Ballotonia
Last edited by Ballotonia on Wed Jul 14, 2010 8:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Een volk dat voor tirannen zwicht zal meer dan lijf en goed verliezen, dan dooft het licht…" -- H.M. van Randwijk

User avatar
Astarial
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 442
Founded: Jul 12, 2004
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Astarial » Wed Jul 14, 2010 3:05 pm

Ardchoille wrote:
  • Are there any words that you can't use in (your version of) Gameplay IC?


No. I can't give you a list of words. But then, I also don't think we should be dealing with lists - I'm looking for consistency.

  • Is the Liberation category's language IC?


  • Yes, absolutely, it must be. Theoretically, you could make one OOC (Liberate Equilism from Nai's delicious muffiny grip!) but that would be entirely inappropriate.

    Thinking it over: What IC? SC-IC, yes, absolutely. RP-IC, no. GP-IC, um, depends on who you are.

  • If yes, what other terms would not be used in that form of IC? If no, are there any terms you couldn't use while writing like that?


  • Like before, there's no list.

  • If you can, please explain your answers in terms of NS being a nation-simulation game with an underlying nation-simulation vocabulary -- like, how do you equate what you've said with what several posters have called "nation-ish" terms?


  • I still have issues with this idea of "nation-ish", because it jumps back into vagueness - RL-nation-ish? Or NationStates-nation-ish?

    Because if it's a NationStates nation, then most GP everything should be completely fine. I say "most" because I'm hesitating on some of the more extreme issues.. like, say, a Condemn given for forum griefing, where the griefer proceded to publically post all the personal details on all members that the forum contained. Clearly, the forum destruction itself ought to be easy to include ("HORRIFIED at the total destruction of REGION'S forums by PERPETRATOR; NOTING WITH SADNESS that years of history, culture, and documents were lost" and so on), but the action taken after that was one directed against the individual players, and not really one within game. I think most GP regions would include the privacy violations in that player's trial, and would certainly take it into account when determining punishment, but to me it seems a little outside the scope.

    But most of our OOC issues come from that of scope, not terminology, so making a list of concrete terms is pretty much impossible.

    But like I said, I don't want a list. I really just want the rules to be consistent between Liberations and C&Cs.
    Ballotonia: Astarial already phrased an answer very well. Hence I'll just say: "Me too."1
    Purriest Kitteh, 2012

    User avatar
    Yelda
    Chargé d'Affaires
     
    Posts: 430
    Founded: Sep 04, 2004
    Benevolent Dictatorship

    Postby Yelda » Wed Jul 14, 2010 7:35 pm

    Sedgistan wrote:Ok, but I'm still confused about what Rule 4 really is. Is it supposed to change the language of proposals so that it could be understood by an RL nation (hence no use of the word feeder) - and if so, why is the term "hidden passwords" left in your version of Todd's Condemn Macedon, since hidden passwords obviously mean nothing to RL nations?


    Cute. Of course it isn't requiring that they be written as RL nations would write them, or written in such a way that RL nations would understand them. It's requiring that they be written in such a way that imaginary nations in a nation sim called NationStates would understand them.

    Additionally, the word feeder really is one that is understandable to NSers across communities (presumably why its in the OSRS) - you say a new nation wouldn't understand it - but there's always going to be things about the game that a newcomer won't understand. If we're saying that Rule 4 has to make resolutions understandable to NS nations, then 'feeder' should be ok.


    I can't speak for anyone else here but I honestly don't have a problem with using "feeder". We all know what it means and those of us who RP could just say that our governments recognize it as a slang term for the Pacifics.

    Finally, a question that has not really been mentioned, but really bothers me - are we going to apply these same standards to Liberation resolutions? Presumably, the answer will be yes, because otherwise the whole point of Rule 4 (making the WA sound like its an international body of nations) is moot.


    I'd say these standards should be applied to Liberations, but again I'm only speaking for myself. I've no idea what the Mod's position on applying R4 standards to Liberations is.

    PreviousNext

    Advertisement

    Remove ads

    Return to Security Council

    Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: Heape Can, United Massachusetts

    Advertisement

    Remove ads