[Legality Challenge] Repeal "Nuclear Arms Possession Act"

[Gruenberg]

I believe this proposal is illegal, as it breaks the Metagaming rules by mentioning the Security Council.

Mentioning the activities of the Security Council is metagaming; more than that, it had always been the intention of the person who actually created the Security Council that "the GA and SC ... operate in different worlds, and members of one ... ignore the other altogether".

If the Security Council is a roleplay organization, then mentioning it is illegal for metagaming, as would be mentioning the International Freedom Coalition or NationStates Olympic Council.
If the Security Council is a gameplay organization, then mentioning it is illegal for metagaming, as would be mentioning the Founderless Regions Alliance or United Defenders League.
If the Security Council is a technical game feature, then mentioning it is illegal for metagaming, as would be mentioning Invading or Daily Issues.

Its mention in WA proposal texts is illegal, and the prohibition on such that has very happily existed for seven years should be reinstated.

[Louisistan]

As per usual, Gruen's methods to drive the point home are crude.

Nonetheless, he is of course correct. Mentioning the Security Council in a GA proposal is Metagaming and illegal.

[Phydios]

You are challenging the legality of your own proposal? Why?

[Gruenberg]

You are challenging the legality of your own proposal? Why?

To avoid "we don't rule on hypotheticals".

[Glen-Rhodes]

GenSec has received this challenge and is formally debating it. Interested parties may share their opinions on its legality here.

[Bears Armed]

You are challenging the legality of your own proposal? Why?

To avoid "we don't rule on hypotheticals".

If you still have no intention of submitting the proposal then really this is still a hypothetical situation... but Sedge has pointed out that his original statement that it was legal to mention the SC was itself in response to a hypothetical question, so there's precedent for discussing it and we're doing so.

[Gruenberg]

If you're going to insist on such a strict standard (stricter even than the mods, who have in the past allowed players to write up such proposals) then I suppose I could submit it and "forget" to run a TG campaign for it, but it seems like exactly the kind of forced-step that this Council should render totally unnecessary.

[Separatist Peoples]

Gruen, can you articulate what kind of harm you believe would befall the General Assembly if references to Gameplay were allowed in proposals?

I'm not trying to attack your position, I'm just trying to play devil's advocate for perspective.

[Gruenberg]

Gruen, can you articulate what kind of harm you believe would befall the General Assembly if references to Gameplay were allowed in proposals?

The WA is an in-character enterprise and writes resolutions from such a perspective. Allowing in other references would be just like allowing in RL references: if people can start resolutions about raiding/defending, then why not Israel/Palestine? If the WA forum, which is a roleplay forum, is going to start debating gameplay, will we start having gameplay topics in the II forum too? Maybe General debates too! Let's "bring everyone together", right? (And can I please be there when you tell them?)

Moreover, the metagaming rules are incredibly restrictive for roleplayers, so it would be an absurd double standard to relax them for gameplayers.

I would also point to those who think I'm being unreasonable that I did actually try to propose a compromise that would allow references to something called "the Security Council" to make sense in-character for roleplaying nations, but it was rejected out of hand in an almost indescribably asinine post.

[Separatist Peoples]

[The WA is an in-character enterprise and writes resolutions from such a perspective. Allowing in other references would be just like allowing in RL references: if people can start resolutions about raiding/defending, then why not Israel/Palestine? If the WA forum, which is a roleplay forum, is going to start debating gameplay, will we start having gameplay topics in the II forum too? Maybe General debates too! Let's "bring everyone together", right? (And can I please be there when you tell them?)

But real world references are distinct from the site as a whole. We have far greater connections to the gameplay aspect of the game than we do to the real world by virtue of operating on the same site. They don't seem very comparable. Both the GA and SC involve "playing the game", while what occurs in General is mere debate without any connection to the mechanics of the game but for the forum posting. The same could be said for II. How do you respond to that?

[Gruenberg]

The same could be said for II.

So your argument is that we have more in common with people who use automated scripts to smash newbies' regions for shits and giggles than with people who play a nation simulation game by simulating nations?

Starting to see why you people have such trouble spotting an IC post in the wild...

"Connection to the mechanics of the game" has little to do with how the rules are enforced. After all, stating that every nation is modern-ish tech, human, and growing at a population rate of millions every day, would be illegal for metagaming, yet very closely "connected to the mechanics of the game". The metagaming rules exist to prevent players using resolutions to force any particular RP paradigm on others - and the existence of the Security Council and the world of region-crashing it regulates is one such paradigm.

[Separatist Peoples]

The same could be said for II.

So your argument is that we have more in common with people who use automated scripts to smash newbies' regions for shits and giggles than with people who play a nation simulation game by simulating nations?

Starting to see why you people have such trouble spotting an IC post in the wild...

There is absolutely no need to attack me here. I'm trying to view this from all possible angles so it can be properly discussed. I'm not about to make a decision without considering all possible angles. You don't make that job easier by lashing out when I try to do that.

This is your opportunity to make your case, not crap on the GenSec members. Please focus on making your case without the attacks.

[Gruenberg]

I'd assume you'd render a decision based on the facts of the case, not personal animus.

You could, for example, explain the problem with the construction I proposed in the OP:

If the Security Council is a roleplay organization, then mentioning it is illegal for metagaming, as would be mentioning the International Freedom Coalition or NationStates Olympic Council.
If the Security Council is a gameplay organization, then mentioning it is illegal for metagaming, as would be mentioning the Founderless Regions Alliance or United Defenders League.
If the Security Council is a technical game feature, then mentioning it is illegal for metagaming, as would be mentioning Invading or Daily Issues.

[Separatist Peoples]

I'd assume you'd render a decision based on the facts of the case, not personal animus.

You could, for example, explain the problem with the construction I proposed in the OP:

If the Security Council is a roleplay organization, then mentioning it is illegal for metagaming, as would be mentioning the International Freedom Coalition or NationStates Olympic Council.
If the Security Council is a gameplay organization, then mentioning it is illegal for metagaming, as would be mentioning the Founderless Regions Alliance or United Defenders League.
If the Security Council is a technical game feature, then mentioning it is illegal for metagaming, as would be mentioning Invading or Daily Issues.

We are. This has nothing to do with you, personally. Please don't mistake my questions for personal opinion. You made the challenge, so you bear the burden of defending it, and I'm trying to do my due diligence by investigating all possible positions, even ones that are not necessarily my own. I wouldn't be doing my job if I only considered a one-sided viewpoint.

[Gruenberg]

I'm trying to do my due diligence by investigating all possible positions

k. But that would seem to indicate you'd address the points I made, too, rather than just thinking up leading questions.

Which I can do too: can you articulate what kind of harm you believe would befall the World Assembly if references to Gameplay were not allowed in proposals? I'm not trying to attack your position, I'm just trying to play devil's advocate for perspective.

[Excidium Planetis]

I disagree.

Firstly, I do not believe the draft (it is not a proposal) is illegal for Metagaming.

The Metagaming rule states:

Meta-Gaming: Proposals cannot break the "fourth wall" or attempt to force events outside of the WA itself. This includes and is not limited to forcing the Security Council to carry out specific actions, mandating that regions carry out specific actions, and forcing compliance on non-member nations.

There are two parts of the rule which can be broken:

1. Breaking the fourth wall
2. forcing actions outside the WA

The second is easily resolved: nowhere does the repeal attempt to force actions outside of the WA, it does not mandate that the SC do anything. It merely states that the SC exists.

The first is harder, but I believe there are two valid arguments that this draft is not Metagaming.

Firstly, mentioning the in game Security Council is not breaking the fourth wall because it refers to another part of the game in an In Character fashion. This is not illegal, and I cite as an example NAPA, which cites a figure for the number of in game WA nations versus non-WA nations, a part of the game outside the GA itself. In the UN days, Repeal "Max Barry Day" referenced the in game issues (although I don't know if Metagaming was a rule back then). Strictly speaking, the fourth wall only exists between the game and outside the game, and referring to other parts of the game in an IC fashion should not violate this, especially since the SC is part of the WA which uses the same membership and voting system, which have been referenced in GA resolutions.

Secondly, it is not certain that the Security Council referred to in the draft is the same one we have passing Commendations. The draft merely says "Security Council", it does not possess the context to assure us that the in game SC is what is being referred to. It could refer to a committee called the Security Council if such a committee had already been created by a GA resolution. It could refer to the Examplestan Security Council. There is simply no language to indicate that we are referring to the other part of the game.

[Gruenberg]

Firstly, mentioning the in game Security Council is not breaking the fourth wall because it refers to another part of the game in an In Character fashion. This is not illegal, and I cite as an example NAPA, which cites a figure for the number of in game WA nations versus non-WA nations, a part of the game outside the GA itself. In the UN days, Repeal "Max Barry Day" referenced the in game issues (although I don't know if Metagaming was a rule back then).

Yes, it was. And at the risk of being snide, Repeal "Max Barry Day" really isn't a great example to lean on, because as Ardchoille noted that resolution would have been illegal under normal circumstances. But because (a) it was striking a resolution that was also illegal (this was pre-Discards) and (b) the game had a sense of humour back then, they let it through.

The draft merely says "Security Council", it does not possess the context to assure us that the in game SC is what is being referred to. It could refer to a committee called the Security Council if such a committee had already been created by a GA resolution.

Except when I proposed such a resolution, the mods immediately ruled it illegal - so clearly it doesn't. Apparently the gnomes would be confused.

[Tzorsland]

Here is a simpler Meta gaming argument. You can't within the sphere of operation mention the SC without violating a principle of the GA (the all of nothing principle of GA resolutions in that they cannot be applied to specific nations within the World Assembly) or invoking the Meta gaming principle that nations are freely move about "regions." First, the notion of the "Region" is a Meta gaming act from the GA perspective. Second the ability to "move" between "regions" (do they still have the helicopter thing moving your nation from one place to the other) is definitely Meta gaming.

Since the only two things the SC can do it award regions and individual nations and liberate regions, both of which are clearly Meta gaming from the GA perspective, it is virtually impossible in GA resolution to even acknowledge the existence of such a body. It's like the nature of committees, it is assumed but can never be deliberately referenced.

[Excidium Planetis]

Yes, it was. And at the risk of being snide, Repeal "Max Barry Day" really isn't a great example to lean on, because as Ardchoille noted that resolution would have been illegal under normal circumstances. But because (a) it was striking a resolution that was also illegal (this was pre-Discards) and (b) the game had a sense of humour back then, they let it through.

Perhaps I am missing something, but I read all of Ardchoille's posts and could not find any statement saying that the repeal was illegal for Metagaming, only the original resolution. Can you quote the post you are referring to?

Except when I proposed such a resolution, the mods immediately ruled it illegal - so clearly it doesn't. Apparently the gnomes would be confused.

Funny you should mention that ruling, as Sedge (who delivered it) said:

The activities of the SC still can't be acknowledged, only the fact that a chamber called the Security Council exists.

And on your appeal to the ruling, Mouse said:

So far as "mentioning the SC," I'd consider that to be similar to "mentioning non-WA member nations." It can be done legally, but I'd generally advise against doing so, if only for simplicity. The examples given above (i.e. substituting "GA&SC" for "WA" as a generic term) are fine, but there's a risk of meta-gaming and unintentionally directing the SC to do something. It's not forbidden; however ... authors should tread carefully.

Basically, the gnomes would be confused because they acknowledge the real SC. The gnomes can't be confused if the SC doesn't exist in their world.

Here is a simpler Meta gaming argument. You can't within the sphere of operation mention the SC without violating a principle of the GA (the all of nothing principle of GA resolutions in that they cannot be applied to specific nations within the World Assembly) or invoking the Meta gaming principle that nations are freely move about "regions." First, the notion of the "Region" is a Meta gaming act from the GA perspective. Second the ability to "move" between "regions" (do they still have the helicopter thing moving your nation from one place to the other) is definitely Meta gaming.

And yet mentioning regions is not illegal. Veterans Reform Act stated:

RECOGNIZING that most nations and regions have armed services

Regions (as an international construct) having armed services in not typically something that happens in real life, but is something that occurs in NS through Regional militaries. Thus can very well be taken as a metagaming reference. But it isn't the only possible interpretation.

Since the only two things the SC can do it award regions and individual nations and liberate regions, both of which are clearly Meta gaming from the GA perspective, it is virtually impossible in GA resolution to even acknowledge the existence of such a body. It's like the nature of committees, it is assumed but can never be deliberately referenced.

But the repeal doesn't mention Commendations, Condemnations, or Liberations. It just mentions the SC. As Sedge said, it is only illegal to mention SC activities, not the SC itself.

[Gruenberg]

Perhaps I am missing something, but I read all of Ardchoille's posts and could not find any statement saying that the repeal was illegal for Metagaming, only the original resolution.

Which makes the repeal just as illegal:

The Max Barry Day resolution is illegal. It got through because the moderators didn't notice it, and therefore failed to delete it. According to the rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465), it should have been zapped (the mods have confirmed this). Since it can no longer be deleted, repealing it is the only way of getting rid of it.

It is illegal for the same reasons as the original, namely, a metagaming acknowledgement of the existence of Max Barry.

The activities of the SC still can't be acknowledged, only the fact that a chamber called the Security Council exists.

It's a meaningless distinction. First, to acknowledge the existence of the SC is to acknowledge its activities, by definition. Second, it's obvious that the reason for mentioning the SC is so you can then mention its activities later on: if you're not able to, there's no point invoking its existence. Third, all metagaming references are illegal, irrespective of the "activities" of the subject. It would not be legal to reference the existence of individual nations, for example, because acknowledging their existence in a freeform roleplay is itself an act of metagaming when forced on others.

Basically, the gnomes would be confused because they acknowledge the real SC. The gnomes can't be confused if the SC doesn't exist in their world.

You understand that this is insane, right? The "gnomes" aren't a thing. It was a joking explanation for the NPCs who staff WA (or at the time, NSUN) committees. They don't have anything to do with the SC and are a joke that later generations took way too seriously.

And yet mentioning regions is not illegal.

Ardchoille explained the distinction here. The standard she was evidently using was that "regions" is permitted when it could be applied to non-NS regions - say, regional areas - and not permitted when it can only possibly apply to NS regions.

A "region" can refer to something other than an NS region: for example, a geographical region or a political bloc. "The Security Council" can only possibly refer to the game SC.

But the repeal doesn't mention Commendations, Condemnations, or Liberations. It just mentions the SC. As Sedge said, it is only illegal to mention SC activities, not the SC itself.

Sedgistan is wrong. Requiring players to acknowledge the existence of [X] is textbook metagaming, irrespective of whether [X]'s activities are mentioned.

[Excidium Planetis]

Perhaps I am missing something, but I read all of Ardchoille's posts and could not find any statement saying that the repeal was illegal for Metagaming, only the original resolution.

Which makes the repeal just as illegal:

No, it doesn't. Illegal resolutions have been repealed in the past for legal reasons. You simply can't use illegality as a reason for repeal. Ardchoille even said this in the discussion. If Repeal Max Barry Day was already illegal anyways, why did not use illegality as an argument against Max Barry Day in the repeal?

The Max Barry Day resolution is illegal. It got through because the moderators didn't notice it, and therefore failed to delete it. According to the rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465), it should have been zapped (the mods have confirmed this). Since it can no longer be deleted, repealing it is the only way of getting rid of it.

It is illegal for the same reasons as the original, namely, a metagaming acknowledgement of the existence of Max Barry.

It acknowledged Max Barry as the Max Barry of NS Issues, which, I argued, was not a metagaming violation.

And Ardchoille never said that the repeal was illegal. You claim Ardchoille's words for your argument, when in fact you do not have a moderator ruling backing your claim up. Do you have any proof that Repeal Max Barry Day was illegal?

It's a meaningless distinction. First, to acknowledge the existence of the SC is to acknowledge its activities, by definition.

No, not really. I recognize the existence of the Illuminati (as a historical organization) but I don't recognize the world conspiracy they are carrying out.

Second, it's obvious that the reason for mentioning the SC is so you can then mention its activities later on: if you're not able to, there's no point invoking its existence.

Irrelevant. This draft makes no claim to be mentioning the activities of the SC in the future.

Third, all metagaming references are illegal, irrespective of the "activities" of the subject. It would not be legal to reference the existence of individual nations, for example, because acknowledging their existence in a freeform roleplay is itself an act of metagaming when forced on others.

No, it can't be done because that is Branding, not Metagaming.

You understand that this is insane, right? The "gnomes" aren't a thing. It was a joking explanation for the NPCs who staff WA (or at the time, NSUN) committees. They don't have anything to do with the SC and are a joke that later generations took way too seriously.

Fine. The NPCs that staff the WA cannot get confused unless the SC actually exists. There is no reason a committee cannot be called the SC unless the SC already exists.

Ardchoille explained the distinction here. The standard she was evidently using was that "regions" is permitted when it could be applied to non-NS regions - say, regional areas - and not permitted when it can only possibly apply to NS regions.

"The Security Council" can only possibly refer to the game SC.

SC can be applied to a committee, rather than the real SC. The only argument you brought against this is a moderator ruling that directly conflicts with your legality challenge. It is hypocritical to attempt to cite a ruling that contradicts your whole position. Either Sedge and Mouse are correct, and the SC can be mentioned, or they are not correct, and the SC can be a committee name.

Sedgistan is wrong.

Oh, good, that means the Security Council can be a committee, doesn't it?

[Bears Armed]

Which makes the repeal just as illegal:

No, it doesn't. Illegal resolutions have been repealed in the past for legal reasons. You simply can't use illegality as a reason for repeal. Ardchoille even said this in the discussion. If Repeal Max Barry Day was already illegal anyways, why did not use illegality as an argument against Max Barry Day in the repeal?

Using illegality as an argument in the repeal would have been an IC acknowledgement of the rules: IC acknowledgement of the rules counted then, as [so far] it counts now, as Meta-gaming.

[Gruenberg]

You're hanging your argument on the merits of Repeal "Max Barry Day", the Illuminati, and gnomes. It's certainly a bold approach.

If Repeal Max Barry Day was already illegal anyways, why did not use illegality as an argument against Max Barry Day in the repeal?

I imagine they didn't want to set a precedent.

It acknowledged Max Barry as the Max Barry of NS Issues, which, I argued, was not a metagaming violation.

Which would still be metagaming. Referencing the contents of issues, such as "the Order of Violet", is not permitted.

Do you have any proof that Repeal Max Barry Day was illegal?

Basic logic? Max Barry Day was illegal for mentioning Max Barry. By accident, it wasn't deleted, and so to make up for their error, the moderators let a humorous repeal that committed the same offence slide through in the name of removing it (at a time when the game was a lot less legalistic and more fun).

No, not really. I recognize the existence of the Illuminati (as a historical organization) but I don't recognize the world conspiracy they are carrying out.

The SC is self-defined as "very much about specifics ... [it] passes resolutions that Condemn or Commend particular nations or regions, and authorizes Liberations, by removing a Delegate's authority to set a regional password (usually to restore order following its capture by invaders)". That's what the SC is.

Irrelevant. This draft makes no claim to be mentioning the activities of the SC in the future.

I guess I could edit that in. Or, I could just wait for the proposals doing exactly that will inevitably ensue once this ruling goes through. In the SG thread, gameplayers were even suggesting that exactly such proposals really would be a good idea!

No, it can't be done because that is Branding, not Metagaming.

Nah. The metagaming rule against mentioning specific nations predates there even being any Branding rule at all!

Fine. The NPCs that staff the WA cannot get confused unless the SC actually exists. There is no reason a committee cannot be called the SC unless the SC already exists.

That sounds an awful lot like moderators ruling on roleplay. Which they have always furiously insisted they won't do, quite rightly.

Oh, good, that means the Security Council can be a committee, doesn't it?

If this challenge fails, that is the next one I will bring, yes. But I'd rather not have to settle for the least worst option.

[Gruenberg]

I've been accused of submitting this challenge "in bad faith". I think that's an unfair charge: Sedgistan's ruling is a profound departure from years of the metagaming rule, and presents a major problem for me - in fact, an insurmountable obstacle to my participation in the WA. I am only interested in playing a fun little roleplaying game, and all I am trying to do is find out whether I will be able to continue playing it.

If they'd like, though, the Council doesn't need to consider my "bad faith" proposal: they could answer a much simpler question. What are the metagaming rules - what do they mean? It's something that has been murky and unclear for years, primarily because so much of it relied on how Hack and Fris interpreted them, and as they drifted out, they didn't seem to pass on that institutional memory to Ard and Kryo, and the Consortium didn't solve anything, and we're at a point, years later, where there are "regulars" self-asserting themselves as knowledgeable on the rules who don't seem to understand their basic point. For more or less the entire time I have played this game - it happened right after I joined, but I wasn't really involved at that point - roleplaying has been more or less banned from proposal texts, justified by the metagaming rules. If that's going to change now, through the mods or Council or whoever, I hope they will consider listening to and interacting with the players on what the broader consequences of that will be. It's unfortunate that the method they've self-chosen - a final unappealable ruling handed down from a secret private forum - precludes the kind of more conversational approach that used to be so much more helpful.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Answering that question isn't the simpler option. And perhaps a more conversational approach would be more likely to happen if you didn't resort to hostility and attacks.

I happen to agree that the metagaming rule is out of whack and needs to be clarified. Personally, though, I don't see a conversation where people resort to trolling in signatures as a conducive environment for the kind of rational and calm discourse you seem to be calling for. If you and others can approach a conversation and let it actually be one, rather than a battle, I'm sure a lot of GenSec and the rest of the community would really be interested in talking about the rules.

We've had long discussions in the past on the rules and the theories behind them. That would be nice to do again. Just let me know when you're ready to do that. I'm all about academic discussion!