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.
Advertisement
by 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.
by 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.
by Ardchoille » Mon Jul 12, 2010 8:16 pm
by Ballotonia » Tue Jul 13, 2010 12:33 am
by Topid » Tue Jul 13, 2010 12:44 am
by Romanar » Tue Jul 13, 2010 12:51 am
by 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.
by 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”.
by 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.
by Todd McCloud » Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:20 am
by 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.)
by 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".
by Metania » Tue Jul 13, 2010 2:12 pm
by 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.
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.
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]".
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?
by Ardchoille » Tue Jul 13, 2010 6:15 pm
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Tue Jul 13, 2010 7:07 pm
Ardchoille wrote:I understand that the NSWIki entry is Nai's work, too.
by Ardchoille » Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:55 am
by 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?
* 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?
by 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?
by 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?
by 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.
by Darkesia » Wed Jul 14, 2010 7:43 am
*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.
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.
by Ballotonia » Wed Jul 14, 2010 8:29 am
by 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?
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?
by 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?
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.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement