SC Rules discussion

[Subeth]

This probably sounds silly, and may have been discussed before, but can a nation be condemned and commended?

[Wrapper]

Yes.

[Paleocacher]

I tried to submit a condemnation for a nation but it says said nation doesn't exist.
The text of the condemnation:
While acknowledging that the acceptance of zombies and the choice to embrace them is a legitimate right that nations possess.

It should be frowned upon that some of the nations that choose to embrace zombies do so for the sole purpose of spreading the plague to cause death and destruction in other nations.

The nation named above assailed at least three regions:
The Brotherhuud, Asylum, and The Forgotten Realms leaving billions of innocent people turned to zombies in said nation's wake and posting taunting messages on RMBs such as this
"I must bid y'all adieu, I've got more regions to hit before the end of z-day. But I do have one tip before I leave, you may want to be careful placing passwords visible to residents."

This resolution hereby concludes that the actions the nation named above, Zatchbell548 undertook on Z-Day were threatening to international safety and warrant condemnation.

The nation: https://www.nationstates.net/nation=zatchbell548

[Sedgistan]

I tried to submit a condemnation for a nation but it says said nation doesn't exist.

Assuming you've entered the name correctly, then this would be a bug, not a rules matter. You'd need to post in Technical to report it.

[Paleocacher]

Apparently this proposal violates rule 4 of the security council. How does it do this and how should I rectify it?

[Sedgistan]

Please could you start a new thread for your proposal, and include the text of it in there.

[Kaboomlandia]

This is for a draft that Europeia is working on right now:

How would one reference a GCR while keeping it R4-legal?

[Crazy girl]

If you mean a feeder or a sinker, you can use the relevant one of those words.

[Kaboomlandia]

If you mean a feeder or a sinker, you can use the relevant one of those words.

Okay. I believe feeder would work.

[Unibot III]

If you mean a feeder or a sinker, you can use the relevant one of those words.

Odd question: I wonder if you could use the abbreviation, GCRs, without identifying its full meaning? Especially if I wasn't overused in the resolution, but rather a side mention.

[Sedgistan]

Afraid not - the same way you couldn't use "GPer" even though that doesn't say "game".

[Phydios]

Afraid not - the same way you couldn't use "GPer" even though that doesn't say "game".

Out of curiosity, would it be legal to state an in-character definition of "GCR" in a resolution and then use the term? Or is this one of those "context required" questions?

[Sygian II]

Afraid not - the same way you couldn't use "GPer" even though that doesn't say "game".

Out of curiosity, would it be legal to state an in-character definition of "GCR" in a resolution and then use the term? Or is this one of those "context required" questions?

I would refrain from that if I were you. Sticking to feeder or sinker would be a legal variation of the same thing.

[Unibot III]

Afraid not - the same way you couldn't use "GPer" even though that doesn't say "game".

I would hope "GPer" would be banned for purely aesthetic reasons if nothing else.

[Unibot III]

*rings a bell for Sedgistan or Crazygirl*

Err, question. Why do we ban WA working groups in the SC anyways? It stems from an old Ard ruling from 2009 but it remained on the books as "Co-authors must be nations, not regions/organisations."

The convention, a vague mutation of Rule II, basically prevents WA working groups to submit resolutions and be recognized as co-authors. Given we're the house that's more involved with gameplaying, I would think it would make sense that we would accommodate regions trying to raise interest in drafting for the SC.

You're both familiar with the practice, but to sum it up: WA working groups work on resolutions as a region and presumably would submit resolutions as a regional group or be recognized for its co-authorship. In theory, I could also see organizations like the UDL or a future organization submitting liberations officially rather than its drafters using their personal and less identifiable accounts.

[Sedgistan]

It's fine. If it's a nation, the nation contributed, and it's happy to be listed as a co-author, you can cite it. We don't have a problem with "working groups" nations being cited.

[Kaboomlandia]

It's fine. If it's a nation, the nation contributed, and it's happy to be listed as a co-author, you can cite it. We don't have a problem with "working groups" nations being cited.

So would using Europeian WA Headquarters to recognize a group-draft effort be legal in the SC?

Asking for a group-draft we're about to start in on.

[Unibot III]

It's fine. If it's a nation, the nation contributed, and it's happy to be listed as a co-author, you can cite it. We don't have a problem with "working groups" nations being cited.

Huzzah, I was wondering because it seemed to be a bit of a departure from the rest of the SC ruleset.

[Sedgistan]

It's fine. If it's a nation, the nation contributed, and it's happy to be listed as a co-author, you can cite it. We don't have a problem with "working groups" nations being cited.

So would using Europeian WA Headquarters to recognize a group-draft effort be legal in the SC?

Asking for a group-draft we're about to start in on.

Yes, you're crediting the nation - that's not a problem. We accept that "working groups" can have contributed sufficiently to a proposal to warrant mention. These will generally be cases where several individuals within a group have worked on a proposal - the individuals who make up the group may not have done enough to each be credited as a co-author, but together as a group it could be justified.

To list a co-author, it still has to be an actual nation. You can't list a region or organisation as a co-author, because then they'll be used for "name checking" or listing supporters, rather than crediting those who have actually contributed to a proposal.

It is expected that (as with regular co-authors) if you're crediting a working group nation, that the people behind the working group have actually contributed enough to justify being co-authors. If proposals start listing "The Rejected Realms WA Mission, The North Pacific Working Group, Another Big Delegate Authors Group" and so on, to sneak in "shout outs" to supporters, then we'll have to reconsider. I'm optimistic that won't happen though.

[Unibot III]

Ah, that distinction makes sense. Would you care to clarify that in the ruleset, Sedge?

[Sedgistan]

I'd linked my first post from the Compendium as soon as it was made - I was waiting for the discussion to conclude before adding any more. I think I've probably said all that can be said on the topic, so I'll add any more links that are needed now.

[Unibot III]

I'd linked my first post from the Compendium as soon as it was made - I was waiting for the discussion to conclude before adding any more. I think I've probably said all that can be said on the topic, so I'll add any more links that are needed now.

Cheers.

[Kaboomlandia]

Here there, just wondering if I can pick someone's brain on a legality issue for something I'm drafting.

Is the phrase "automated telegramming systems" R4-compliant, and if not, what would be a phrasing to make it legal?

[Sedgistan]

It doesn't sound R4 compliant to me - it's too much of a reference to NS being an online game. It's easier to advise how better to phrase it if you can write the clause you'd like to use.

[Kaboomlandia]

No worries, I think we managed to figure it out. Thanks anyway!