factual error in a liberation proposal

[New Rockport]

Dear Moderators:

I am writing on behalf of the Republic of New Rockport to request a ruling on the legality of a liberation proposal. Yesterday, our World Assembly ambassador submitted a proposal, titled "Liberate Chicago." One of the preambulatory clauses of the proposal states, "AWARE that the region of Chicago was a community of about 30 nations until it was invaded by the Den Army on January 23, 2009..." After the proposal was submitted, it came to our attention that the clause appears to be inaccurate. While Chicago had been home to about 30 nations at some point before the invasion, it was not home to about 30 nations at the time of the invasion.

It is our position that the apparently inaccurate preambulatory clause does not invalidate the resolution for the following reasons. First, at the time this proposal was submitted, there was nothing in the rules of proposal writing that requires all preambulatory clauses to be factually accurate. Such a rule was posted by Ardchoille earlier today, but that post does not state explicitly that it applies to liberation proposals, only to commendations and condemnations. At any rate, to apply this rule to a proposal submitted the day before the rule was made would be an ex post facto enforcement of the rule. Second, the apparently inaccurate clause is immaterial to the issue that the liberation proposal seeks to resolve. Region destruction of the sort being attempted in Chicago is wrong regardless of the size of the region being targeted for destruction.

For those reasons, the Republic of New Rockport believes that the proposal "Liberate Chicago" should be allowed to come to a vote of the World Assembly. If you, the moderators disagree, however, and decide to remove the proposal from the queue, we ask that you make such a ruling as soon as possible so that we may make a timely submission of a revised proposal.

Respectfully submitted,
David Corrigan, Esq.
Deputy Counsel to the Ambassador
Republic of New Rockport

[The Emmerian Unions]

<<Off-topic: The Moderation forum is ALL OOC,. so you don't need this:

Respectfully submitted,
David Corrigan, Esq.
Deputy Counsel to the Ambassador
Republic of New Rockport

>>

<<On Topic>>
Methinks you could've also submitted a GHR(Getting Help Request) from the FAQ link.

[Sirocco]

I think it'd be a hassle if we had to go fact-checking every proposal on the floor. Sometimes that would be impossible anyway.

It's up to the WA to keep facts accurate, not the mods.

[Erastide]

I think it'd be a hassle if we had to go fact-checking every proposal on the floor. Sometimes that would be impossible anyway.

It's up to the WA to keep facts accurate, not the mods.

I'll note Ard said something different Sirocco... But then again I don't think a difference in number is that huge of a deal.

[King Alphaks]

A proposal should at least be factually accurate before it comes to vote . The way its written now it makes it seem as if DEN kicked out over 20 natives from the region when this is clearly not the case if there was admittedly only 11 in the region,half of those my DEN troopers,and the region had a hidden password put up by the native delegate. Isn't spreading lies about a person or a region with the intention of defaming us under false pretenses griefing? And is it not a worse than usual form of griefing since it is presented to the WA as fact?

Sirocco is this the mods final ruling on this issue? If it is I'd like to try and get someone a little more impartial than you to look at since you played such a big part at getting the liberation rules implemented. No offense intended,but I would like to think mods are human and maybe a bit biased toward work they put alot of time and thought into. I can contact Violet at admin@nationstates.net correct?

[StCharles West Apts]

The fact remains that the DEN did kick out a bunch of nations from Chicago, including yours truly.

And yet now you are also saying that the DEN is no longer in Chicago!

[Sirocco]

We need to figure out the rules in co-operation with the players - if anyone has an idea as to how things should work then make an argument for it and we'll listen.

[King Alphaks]

One native nation was kicked from Chicago ,StCharles west Apts. We should not have to bear the burden as players of kicking 20+ nations from Chicago when it never really happened. As a long time player of this game I do not want my reputation damaged like that over an event that never took place,and I myself would consider wrong.

Chicago was passworded by BobEperu and dying when Serval Cat became delegate there, we played by the rules to take the delegates seat and wanted to refound it.
I think the whole Belgium thing caused an emotional over reaction to an event that is fairly rare in this game. The liberate rule is suited to that situation,but to have to make up lies about non existent communities to do favors for your buddies through the WA is wrong.
That is exactly what happened in Chicago and it is not fair to loyal players like me who love this game and do our best to play within the rules provided to us. Now StCharles west gets to call us cheaters in his nation name,flame us endlessly in TORC with puppets and create fake DEN regions with his friends designed solely to impersonate, harass,and confuse yet nothing gets done about it. I like the way the WA is involved more directly in the day to day aspects of the game but the liberate rules are currently broken and vulnerable to exploits.
I propose the liberate rules be temporarily removed and all the possible exploits worked out before they are re- inserted into the game. Or you could just grandfather in regions that were passworded prior to the rule implementation so the facts of the situations requiring a Liberate resolution are more clear.

[Todd McCloud]

We need to figure out the rules in co-operation with the players - if anyone has an idea as to how things should work then make an argument for it and we'll listen.

I've tried to be an observer here, but I'll offer some input. Being a former raider, I might be able to help. Typically, passwords aren't put onto a region until there are either no natives left or very few raiders left. The reason being it costs less influence to have a password shown to the natives than one that is completely hidden to everyone but the delegate in the region. Still, if that is indeed the case, the region is doomed. Not trying to be mean about it, but the region had ample time to free itself, and defenders had ample time to mount a successful counter-attack. But when is time enough? I'd say somewhere around 25% or less of the natives left in the region. So, if there's 20 natives in the region from the start, and all but five have been ejected, enough time should have passed with regards to influence and the like that a password would be acceptable. Note, this is only qualifying for a password, not a raid. And while I've been very opinionated with the likes of a password-grab, there must be a division between raid, then password and a straight-out password-grab, such as Belgium. Obviously, a password-grab *is* constrained by time, as it leaves very little chance for the chance of a different outcome. No skill, no real talent there. Just a password and boom goes the dynamite. I'd say any password set up in the course of five days after the fact is a password-grab. Maybe a week, but that depends on the situation.

Chicago was legal. Sure, the destruction of a region isn't pretty, but there was enough time for something or someone to change the fate of the region. There still is, if they choose to refound it. But we can't go after every raided region that is in the process of being taken over. Password-grabbed regions? Absolutely; they tarnish the name of raiders. True raids getting down to the wire? Nah. Should be perfectly legal.

Anything less would give an unfair advantage to either side.

[Martyrdoom]

I'm with King Alphaks on this one.

Their are too many fundamental vulnerabilites easily exploited within the concept of liberation - it needs to go back to the drawing board. Indeed, the entire drawing board it was borne from has to go back to the drawing board. Seriously though, liberations offer regions who don't take their defence seriously in the first place an even better reason to become more lackadaisical. It's rewarding true defending failure, while penalising true raiding success.

The problem displayed here will grow until its not unlike the furore just before the invasion-griefing rule was abolished and influence instituted. The main contradiction I see is that passwords are currently legal to install in any circumstance, whether for benign or harmful reasons or password-grabs, while liberation rubs against this: in the hope of re-gaining a measure of equilibrium either passwords go or liberation goes.

As someone has said in the Chicago thread "the precedent [of liberating Chicago under this current proposal] that this would establish is a threat to the autonomy and freedom of WA delegates anywhere else," and then we ally it with this very real probability, "[that] this is nothing more than a sham by certain groups to use the WA's power in their favor and to their personal privileged," we can see the inherent dangers: WA-army, police, coalition of the willing, call it what you want.

[Bears Armed]

Seriously though, liberations offer regions who don't take their defence seriously in the first place an even better reason to become more lackadaisical. It's rewarding true defending failure, while penalising true raiding success.

So we're back to "Every region should have to play the invader/defender game", are we? Can you and your fellow wreckers NOT get it into your heads that a LOT of players aren't at all interested in that side of the game, simply want to be left alone by it, and should be left alone by it?

[Erastide]

Kay, time to cut the discussion. I will note that there is not any current rule (I was wrong) about liberation proposals needing to be factually correct. So unless another Game Mod speaks up, the discussion needs to stop.

[Todd McCloud]

Kay, time to cut the discussion. I will note that there is not any current rule (I was wrong) about liberation proposals needing to be factually correct. So unless another Game Mod speaks up, the discussion needs to stop.

We're not allowed to discuss this?

[Erastide]

The discussion about invading/defending and the morality of such needs to stop. And honestly, discussing whether the correctness of a proposal should even be moderated should go in theRules Thread

[King Alphaks]

The discussion about invading/defending and the morality of such needs to stop. And honestly, discussing whether the correctness of a proposal should even be moderated should go in theRules Thread

Oh really? So its ok to railroad a regions reputation ,along with the nations in it, with lies an untruths through the WA now? And did Sirocco not ask for our thoughts here,saying he would listen?

Thats fine Erastide ,maybe Violet will listen to reason, because I will not accept being held accountable for mass ejections from a region when the event never took place. The author admits it is factually inaccurate and there are regions and long time NS players reputations at stake here, this resolution is nothing short of griefing..

[West-Flanders]

Well, it was to be expected.

Before influence, mods had to judge wether there was an invasion/griefing going on.
So influence was introduced to relieve the mods of that burden.

However under the influence-system, regions are getting destroyed, as griefing was in fact made legal.
So to avoid the quick-invisible-passwording-of-a-region, liberation-resolutions were introduced (though it doesn't prevent griefing).

An interesting question indeed: "Should mods start modding the liberation/commend/condemn-proposals for factual truth?". Both sides will always have their version of the truth. Under the old rules, mods made (impartial) rulings. Now it's basically mob rule, those who yell the loudest will be heared the most.

[Erastide]

What I said is that discussing invading vs. defending should not happen here. You should discuss the matters of this specific complaint, but right now, there is no rule on whether the statements in a Liberation proposal need to be factually accurate. If you think it should be defeated on that basis, I suggest you start a campaign to get delegates to unendorse it so that it is no longer in quorum.

Go ahead and email admin@nationstates.net and ask [violet]'s opinion, that's your right.

[King Alphaks]

What I said is that discussing invading vs. defending should not happen here. You should discuss the matters of this specific complaint, but right now, there is no rule on whether the statements in a Liberation proposal need to be factually accurate. If you think it should be defeated on that basis, I suggest you start a campaign to get delegates to unendorse it so that it is no longer in quorum.

Go ahead and email admin@nationstates.net and ask [violet]'s opinion, that's your right.

Sorry I misunderstood you Erastide, obviously I feel strongly that nations and regions reputations should not be harmed by "factually inaccurate " WA proposals. I have e-mailed Violet, and am awaiting a response.

[Ardchoille]

I am sorry I have caused some of this confusion by my post on C&Cs, which I will amend to make clearer. Let me say that on this subject Sirocco and I are singing from the same hymn-book: it's definitely up to the WA.

Way back, when C&Cs first fell on our heads, I mentioned that a condemnation might be deliberately based on false information, and it would take mods hours to sort through what was true and what wasn't. The admins' reply then (you won't find this on the forums) was that the mods sweeping the queue SHOULD NOT test C&C proposals for truth.

First, because the process wouldn't be entirely visible. We like transparency. Which mod cut a proposal and why is visible to admins. But "it wasn't true" is not transparent.

It allows too much possibility of misinterpretation: what is "true" when discussing, say, a raider action, often varies with the position and attitudes of the speaker. Mods shouldn't be required to take sides on such a thing because then we get back to the sort of confusion, including accusations of mod bias, that bedevilled the pre-influence days.

Add to that, having mods do the checking puts on the mods a responsibility that was designed to belong to the players. Delegates doing their duty will investigate claims themselves and cast their votes on the basis of those investigations. In both SC categories so far, the players are being asked to give an opinion on player actions. Liberation takes this one step further, by ensuring that opinion will be followed by player-generated action.

So Sirocco is spot-on in saying that it's up to the WA to determine (first via approvals and then via a vote).

The reason for my reference to posting about factual errors in Moderation or in Getting Help was that I was thinking of SC proposals in terms of GA proposals. There are very specific rules for what makes a legal GA proposal. They're also very complex rules, and sometimes players are unable to agree on their interpretation. That's when they turn to the mods for a technical ruling; it's known as a Legality Challenge. It doesn't have to be about the "truth" of a proposal, because a law isn't "true" or "false", though it might be "good" or "bad".

But what New Rockport is asking here is not a ruling on a technicality, based on the wording of the proposal; it's the other sort of ruling, the one mods've been specifically told not to give.

I can. however, give you some technical advice. You say that "after the proposal was submitted, it came to our attention that the clause appears to be inaccurate". You also say "the apparently inaccurate clause is immaterial to the issue that the liberation proposal seeks to resolve".

If you let it go to vote with a clause you know to be inaccurate, you are almost guaranteeing that that's where the discussion will centre. The issue you really want resolved, the liberation of Chicago, will be lost in accusations of lack of preparation at best and dishonesty at worst. Your motives will be questioned and your own reputation will be affected.

If the clause really is immaterial, then, your best option would be to ask us to delete the current proposal so that you can rewrite it, dropping the disputed clause. That would let the SC focus on the needs of Chicago, rather than on futile debate about its membership numbers.

You have two weeks, because after the current vote on Belgium's liberation the next At Vote will be a GA proposal. Discuss it, decide, and post here or in Getting Help if you want your current proposal deleted.

[Of crazed]

How can a fact error be allowed for something as serious as a liberation proposal? First of all the proposal might get more votes because they exaggerate a claim. There has to be some kind of system of review.

The DEN Army are being falsely accused of ejecting natives that they did not eject. Under the old game rules (pre influence) when someone got accused of ejecting the % of natives that are required to break the rules, the mods reviewed it and if they did they got their UN status removed for that nation, and if not things went on as normal. I thought influences whole purpose was to make it so that issue regulates itself and there is no need to review. The introduction of liberation WA proposals to me dictates that there is a need to review in the same manner as the pre-influence raiding rules.

The way I see it one of two things has to happen
1) If a player finds harm in the facts of a liberation proposal, and requests that a mod reviews it. The mods review it and if it is false remove the proposal. (NOTE: The mods don't have to review every case, just the ones that are brought up by the players)
2) Revert the game back to the influence era raiding rules that were balanced by game mechanics and that does not require review.

These WA proposals will lead to a case where review is necessary, such as this case. To ignore it on the basis that "I think it'd be a hassle if we had to go fact-checking every proposal on the floor. Sometimes that would be impossible anyway." is crazy. No one is asking for such a thing. What we are asking is some sort of system that if we have a problem with the facts of a serious game changing liberation proposal that there is some kind of system that we can get a review. If the mods don't have time to mod this game mechanic, then nix the mechanic so it doesn't get abused.

[Kryozerkia]

There is a system and right now it's called posting your proposal to the Security Council forum. Some people may not use it, and typically those proposals get little support.

Also, what you may considered to be a factual error may not be one for those who want the liberation. They want their region back, and you don't want to give up your control. It's obvious what your motive is here regarding the factual error. Any tiny loophole to avoid having those whose region you took get it back legally.

The mods are human. We can only review everything so much. Besides, we don't know what goes on behind the scenes between different factions. I know I tend not to give a damn. All I look for in the forum is rule breaking, not errors in facts. I'm sure the same goes for those who mod the WA. They look for proposals which are illegal or silly. I don't know about my fellow mods, but I know I can't follow every petty squabble roleplay between nations and regions.

[New Rockport]

But what New Rockport is asking here is not a ruling on a technicality, based on the wording of the proposal; it's the other sort of ruling, the one mods've been specifically told not to give.

I apologize for having put the moderators in a tough spot.

I can. however, give you some technical advice. You say that "after the proposal was submitted, it came to our attention that the clause appears to be inaccurate". You also say "the apparently inaccurate clause is immaterial to the issue that the liberation proposal seeks to resolve".

If you let it go to vote with a clause you know to be inaccurate, you are almost guaranteeing that that's where the discussion will centre.

You are probably right, and if we re-submit the proposal now, it won't lose its place in the queue. Please go ahead and delete the current proposal.

Thank you to all of the moderators for all of your hard work. I apologize that my mistake took up so much of your time.

[Erastide]

How can a fact error be allowed for something as serious as a liberation proposal? First of all the proposal might get more votes because they exaggerate a claim. There has to be some kind of system of review.

That system of review is the Security Council forum. And if you feel a proposal is inaccurate, you can TG delegates showing them the facts on the forum. There's something to politics that "lies" get through and are promoted as truth. I'm not sure it should be the mods job to figure out the truth behind each proposal.

[Ardchoille]

You are probably right, and if we re-submit the proposal now, it won't lose its place in the queue. Please go ahead and delete the current proposal.

Thank you to all of the moderators for all of your hard work. I apologize that my mistake took up so much of your time.

Done. And don't apologise: you underlined a problem in my C&C ruleset (allowing me to fix it before the admins woke up and came after me ), and you've given more currency to the way the Security Council proposals work.

[Of crazed]

They want their region back, and you don't want to give up your control. It's obvious what your motive is here regarding the factual error. Any tiny loophole to avoid having those whose region you took get it back legally.

The mods are human. We can only review everything so much.

If the mods don't have time to review it AT ALL, then I say its pretty obvious that we need new moderators or more. What kind of excuse is it that there is no time to review anything?

And you really are the last person to talk about motives, the way you phrased the bolded sentence.

For the record, myself and the DEN Army have not been getting along on the best term for the last year. Of course you wouldn't know because you don't follow it or care, which leads to the point if you don't follow it or care about it, why should anyone listen to your assumptions about it?