New category rules

[Urgench]

I mean, many communities are vastly different than the site forum, so how are the mods suppose to judge what they would moderated or not...

This is part of why I think we should avoid offsite activity altogether, what's moderatable or what's not on offsite forums is beyond the competence of the WA. So if a player is being commended for being a great contributor to the harmony and smooth running of a regional offsite forum we have no idea if they actually did so in accordance with standards recognizable from the NS official forums without being a habitué of said forum.

[Ardchoille]

Whether an action on an offsite forum is worthy of condemnation or commendation is up to the delegates to find out. The responsibility for all decisions on the truth or falsehood of a C&C has been dunped firmly and irrevocably in your laps.

The caveat, "don't condemn something that should be taken to Moderation", has to apply only to stuff that happens on NS forums, because only if it happened on NS forums could it be taken to Moderation. Therefore that line can refer only to NS forums.

Would you prefer it to be clarified along the lines of "Don't condemn for something that can be, rather than should be, dealt with in the NS Moderation forum"?

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

A line has to be drawn somewhere when it comes to activities that are commendable or condemnable. I think it's logical to draw that line at nationstates.net and forum.nationstates.net.

Yes lots of communities have offsite forums and there is activity there that is directly related to nationstates. But lots of communities also have actual websites with maps and charts and history that is directly related to nationstates. There is NSwiki, where all the activity is directly related to nationstates. And then there are actual games, completely separate from nationstates, where some members partake in activities that are at least peripherally related to nationstates. Could we commend Gruenberg because his Goatforce Gruenberg team won the Antarctic Oasis Football League at xperteleven.com? What about things like nsdossier, nseconomy or sunsetrpg? Those are directly related to nationstates.

If we allow activity at one offsite location to be C&Ced then somebody will say "but what about mine" or "what about this" or "what about that" and the line will eventually have to drawn somewhere. It makes sense to draw that line at the actual game site and the official forums. That way it is fair and equitable to everybody.

[Bears Armed]

A line has to be drawn somewhere when it comes to activities that are commendable or condemnable. I think it's logical to draw that line at nationstates.net and forum.nationstates.net.

Yes lots of communities have offsite forums and there is activity there that is directly related to nationstates. But lots of communities also have actual websites with maps and charts and history that is directly related to nationstates. There is NSwiki, where all the activity is directly related to nationstates. And then there are actual games, completely separate from nationstates, where some members partake in activities that are at least peripherally related to nationstates. Could we commend Gruenberg because his Goatforce Gruenberg team won the Antarctic Oasis Football League at xperteleven.com? What about things like nsdossier, nseconomy or sunsetrpg? Those are directly related to nationstates.

If we allow activity at one offsite location to be C&Ced then somebody will say "but what about mine" or "what about this" or "what about that" and the line will eventually have to drawn somewhere. It makes sense to draw that line at the actual game site and the official forums. That way it is fair and equitable to everybody.

I agree. Also, as somebody (Ardchoille?) pointed out earlier on in one of these discussions, the use of material in offsite forums as justification for proposals could be seen as the Security Council's version of the 'House of Cards' rule... because there's no innate guarantee that those other sites will stay around for as long as NS itself does, and if they do cease to exist then those references in those resolutions would become meaningless.

[Erastide]

I do think that the actions being referenced need to impact NS gameside, but the problem is for gameplayers that words that affect what happens gameside usually happen on forums. There's no way the RMB could handle it, and each region is not allotted their own space under gameplay. So in order to have any communication, a large region needs to use a forum. And since a resolution usually needs evidence to back it up, being able to reference the forums is something they would like.

So, I would agree saying something like, "commending Flemingovia for his administration of TNP forums" would be bad. But as part of a commend, saying "Commending Flemingovia for his rational influence on discussions between TNP and ___" Where the evidence was on TNP's forums would be fine. Or even "Condemning _____ for changing the official TNP forums against the will of the government"

I also don't see why wiki and economy sites couldn't be included as part of a SC resolution.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

I do think that the actions being referenced need to impact NS gameside, but the problem is for gameplayers that words that affect what happens gameside usually happen on forums. There's no way the RMB could handle it, and each region is not allotted their own space under gameplay. So in order to have any communication, a large region needs to use a forum. And since a resolution usually needs evidence to back it up, being able to reference the forums is something they would like.

So, I would agree saying something like, "commending Flemingovia for his administration of TNP forums" would be bad. But as part of a commend, saying "Commending Flemingovia for his rational influence on discussions between TNP and ___" Where the evidence was on TNP's forums would be fine. Or even "Condemning _____ for changing the official TNP forums against the will of the government"

I also don't see why wiki and economy sites couldn't be included as part of a SC resolution.

I don't think those offsite forums or websites should be mentioned in the actual C&C though because as has already been pointed out, they could disappear tomorrow. Then part of the justification for the C&C would literally no longer exist. It really is similar to the HoC rule in the GA. C&Cs should be able to stand on their own even those offsites cease to exist.

[The Sedge]

But the work which the person has done would still have been done, even if the forum is then deleted.

[Bears Armed]

But the work which the person has done would still have been done, even if the forum is then deleted.

But any other people needing to check the facts after that deletion, for example when considering a possible repeal of the earlier proposal, would then be unable to do so...

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

But the work which the person has done would still have been done, even if the forum is then deleted.

But the proof that the person had done that work would no longer exist. The person would be commended (or condemned) based on hearsay. Basically they would have a commendation or condemnation based on events that may or may not have even taken place.

[Erastide]

I do think that the actions being referenced need to impact NS gameside, but the problem is for gameplayers that words that affect what happens gameside usually happen on forums. There's no way the RMB could handle it, and each region is not allotted their own space under gameplay. So in order to have any communication, a large region needs to use a forum. And since a resolution usually needs evidence to back it up, being able to reference the forums is something they would like.

So, I would agree saying something like, "commending Flemingovia for his administration of TNP forums" would be bad. But as part of a commend, saying "Commending Flemingovia for his rational influence on discussions between TNP and ___" Where the evidence was on TNP's forums would be fine. Or even "Condemning _____ for changing the official TNP forums against the will of the government"

I also don't see why wiki and economy sites couldn't be included as part of a SC resolution.

I don't think those offsite forums or websites should be mentioned in the actual C&C though because as has already been pointed out, they could disappear tomorrow. Then part of the justification for the C&C would literally no longer exist. It really is similar to the HoC rule in the GA. C&Cs should be able to stand on their own even those offsites cease to exist.

None of those examples mentioned actual forums, except perhaps the one I think is a bad one. Saying these forums could go away is true, but then the nations that are being C&C'd can also die. That the evidence (linked in a thread on this forum) is on another forum has to be acceptable, even if the potential is it could be lost.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

I do think that the actions being referenced need to impact NS gameside, but the problem is for gameplayers that words that affect what happens gameside usually happen on forums. There's no way the RMB could handle it, and each region is not allotted their own space under gameplay. So in order to have any communication, a large region needs to use a forum. And since a resolution usually needs evidence to back it up, being able to reference the forums is something they would like.

So, I would agree saying something like, "commending Flemingovia for his administration of TNP forums" would be bad. But as part of a commend, saying "Commending Flemingovia for his rational influence on discussions between TNP and ___" Where the evidence was on TNP's forums would be fine. Or even "Condemning _____ for changing the official TNP forums against the will of the government"

I also don't see why wiki and economy sites couldn't be included as part of a SC resolution.

I don't think those offsite forums or websites should be mentioned in the actual C&C though because as has already been pointed out, they could disappear tomorrow. Then part of the justification for the C&C would literally no longer exist. It really is similar to the HoC rule in the GA. C&Cs should be able to stand on their own even those offsites cease to exist.

None of those examples mentioned actual forums, except perhaps the one I think is a bad one. Saying these forums could go away is true, but then the nations that are being C&C'd can also die. That the evidence (linked in a thread on this forum) is on another forum has to be acceptable, even if the potential is it could be lost.

I just don't want to see them mentioned directly in the text of the actual C&C. That way if the offsite dies then the C&C can still stand on its own. If they're used in the arguments here on the forum that's fine.

[Urgench]

Whether an action on an offsite forum is worthy of condemnation or commendation is up to the delegates to find out. The responsibility for all decisions on the truth or falsehood of a C&C has been dunped firmly and irrevocably in your laps.

The caveat, "don't condemn something that should be taken to Moderation", has to apply only to stuff that happens on NS forums, because only if it happened on NS forums could it be taken to Moderation. Therefore that line can refer only to NS forums.

See I think that's totally unreasonable really, how should I be expected to know that Poopooistan has been an excellent contirbutor to Weeweeville's regional forum ? Sure I can go and check referenced activity and find out the good stuff, but I wouldn't be able to find out that Poopooistan is actually a mate of the Forum's creators or other head honchos and as a result has gotten away with all kinds of bullying and unpleasantness in said forum, for example.

There are thousands of nations and regions it's impossible for delegates to be able to judge all of the oodles of regional forum's standard of moderation and behaviour, that's why I think offsite shouldn't be in a commendation.

[Unibot]

There are thousands of nations and regions it's impossible for delegates to be able to judge all of the oodles of regional forum's standard of moderation and behaviour, that's why I think offsite shouldn't be in a commendation.

Thats' what happens when you vote across a large body of people, the boring sheep-like majority wins out. Sorry to anyone I just offended.

The Axis of Absurdity or whatever, can try to pass a commendation for a forum user all they like, with the justification being "a good quality, and funny spammer". But unless those qualities are appreciated by the majority I just described, the proposal will fall flat when it comes to voting.

Well, unless the author makes a compelling preamble concerning subjectiveness, open minds, and observation to steer the majority in the other 'culture appreciative' direction. In which case, that would be admirable work.

I think Ard's suggestion works well. Through the natural order of things, silly things just aren't typically going to get the votes they need, and if they do, a good ol' repeal would do well to remind people that the WA isn't here to be any offsite forums' nanny.

As for the house of cards suggestion, I asked that a while back. I've now come to the conclusion that it isn't anymore of a house cards violation than mentioning Macedon in a resolution. Macedon very well might not exist in a year or two. Anyone mentioned in a commend or condemn can die, and 'cease to exist'. Then the argument (or need) for a repeal, would be 'the region has been refounded'. A region can die, and so can a forum.

How about in proposals, we stop talking about offsite/onsite forums, that distinction is unimportant for the proposal itself, a regional forum is a community that is contributing to NationStates as much as anything else. Sounds flaky, I know. But I mean, instead of saying, "he ran NSeconomy", you would talk about how his economic indexes improved or helped economists around the NS world. Think in the Macro instead of the Micro, if you know what I mean... (nope, )

I also asked about where do we draw the line, which is an even tricky question to answer. Now - my answer would be anything that seems reasonable to acknowledge to voters, why even bring moderation in to it? If you're such a good writer you can get away with commending a Popsicle stick for being wood - and get it passed, good for you, and watch out for an instant repeal!

[Urgench]

snip

I see you avoided answering my main point about us all not being able to be sure that the overall standard of conduct on offsite forums is comparable to NS, and how is it that every time you post you seem to sound more and more commanding ? "Think Macro not Micro", you mean think gibberish not reality.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

How about in proposals, we stop talking about offsite/onsite forums, that distinction is unimportant for the proposal itself, a regional forum is a community that is contributing to NationStates as much as anything else. Sounds flaky, I know. But I mean, instead of saying, "he ran NSeconomy", you would talk about how his economic indexes improved or helped economists around the NS world.

Well sure, you could commend someone for work that they did offsite without ever mentioning the actual offsite forum/wiki/calculator, or whatever. For instance you could commend Goob for his work at NSWiki without ever directly mentioning NSWiki.

"COMMENDS Goobergunchia for his tireless efforts to archive the history and records of NationStates and make those archives accessible to everyone." *

Even though everyone would know that it referenced his work at NSWiki it could be interpreted in-game as him improving the game, helping the community, etc.

What I DON'T want to see is the offsite forums, wikis, websites, etc directly mentioned within the text of the proposal. We have to maintain some semblance of order here or this thing will get out of hand. This is NationStates. It is not NationStates&invisionfree&zeta-boards&Geocities&whateverotherNS-relatedwebsiteyoucanthinkof.com.

*I'm still not happy with this commend the player crap. I'd much rather see "COMMENDS the nation of Goobergunchia..."

[Unibot]

What I was saying is if we think offsite communities are apart of NationStates as a whole. Then we should treat it as a part of the whole in a proposal. "Macro not Micro" maybe was too nebulous of wording, sorry.

*I'm still not happy with this commend the player crap. I'd much rather see "COMMENDS the nation of Goobergunchia..."

Oops, I used a player as my example, my bad. I hate the player crap too. I think if one wants to commend someone for RL, get his address and send him a box of cookies.

I see you avoided answering my main point about us all not being able to be sure that the overall standard of conduct on offsite forums is comparable to NS

It doesn't need to be. Offensive proposals would obviously be deleted as usual (ex. commendations for nations that make make good racist jokes, with examples of his work, from one regional forum). Which leaves the majority to decide if the proposal's argument is worthy of a C&C. If what is defined as commendable in one NS community does not make the grade with the voters, too bad, same thing goes for condemnations - spammers and flammers would probably be seen as too petty to make quorum.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

Oops, I used a player as my example, my bad. I hate the player crap too. I think if one wants to commend someone for RL, get his address and send him a box of cookies.

I think we may as well accept that C&Cs are going to written about players. That precedent has already been set, the genie is out of the bottle so to speak. It needs to be one or the other though. Don't try to commend the player and the nation in the same resolution.

[Unibot]

Don't try to commend the player and the nation in the same resolution.

Like "Commend Kandarin"

[Ardchoille]

I just don't want to see them mentioned directly in the text of the actual C&C. That way if the offsite dies then the C&C can still stand on its own. If they're used in the arguments here on the forum that's fine.

Spot on. The links, direct references, etc, can be brought up during the debate.

[EDIT]I misunderstood MSR's point here. I don't want to see specifics mentioned in the proposal if they're the sort of specifics that can change over time. However, the fact that, say, Goober organised and hosted NSWiki isn't going to change, no matter how the site itself, or the content of it, or its purpose, may change. So that can be mentioned in the text. If an offsite dies, it has still existed, and actions taken while it existed can form the basis for a C&C. But proof of those actions will no longer be available. [/EDIT]

Debates are transient -- can still be researched, as they're archived, but aren't on permanent public display in the way resolutions are, so it doesn't matter if the links become inactive later. So long as they were active during the debate, they serve their purpose.

That does mean that if a poster totally ignores his own proposal, as the author of Condemn Nazi Europe did, there will be no convincing proof that the C&C is deserved. And that should mean that the Delegates who approved the proposal for discussion will not vote in its favour, and the C&C will be soundly rejected.

I'd like to think it will be so, even if current events don't point that way. [violet] said that the SC proposals were giving the WA a "moral" dimension. That suggests to me that SC voters are expected to put aside personal interest and vote on principle. If they are, it will probably take a while to be evident. But then, I guess it didn't happen immediately in the NS UN, either. Yet by the time I got involved in it, it wasn't unusual to see people writing, "While I (IC, the ambassador speaking) am personally opposed to this because of blah blah blah, my government has instructed me to vote for it because of blah blah blah." It needs a lot of players with reputations for being fair to keep banging that drum.

... don't try to commend the player and the nation in the same resolution

On your second point, Mad Sheep Damnyou For Having Such a Long Name, I think the general way I've written the C&C rules can be read to cover that. I've asked for consistency; so if a player is mentioned as a person, and the concluding line is, as it must be, "Commend @@Nationname@@", then those reading it are expected to accept that @@nationname@@, in this context and for this particular proposal, refers to the player behind -- eg, a person whom they're calling by the nickname "@@Nationname@@" -- and it's therefore consistent.

(Phew. I usually only have to use that sort of legalistic fancy-dancing in UNOG. Enjoyed the exercise. Thanks.)

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

I just don't want to see them mentioned directly in the text of the actual C&C. That way if the offsite dies then the C&C can still stand on its own. If they're used in the arguments here on the forum that's fine.

Spot on. The links, direct references, etc, can be brought up during the debate. Debates are transient -- can still be researched, as they're archived, but aren't on permanent public display in the way resolutions are, so it doesn't matter if the links become inactive later. So long as they were active during the debate, they serve their purpose.

So just for clarification, you're saying that offsite forums, websites, wikis, calculators, etc cannot be directly mentioned within the text of the proposal? Correct?

[violet] said that the SC proposals were giving the WA a "moral" dimension.

So deliberating on all this in-game stuff will give the WA a 'moral' dimension, but deliberating on humanitarian aid, torture, hunger and slavery didn't? What an absolutely bizarre way of thinking!

[Quintessence of Dust]

[violet] said that the SC proposals were giving the WA a "moral" dimension. That suggests to me that SC voters are expected to put aside personal interest and vote on principle.

What [violet] says is not a holy thing, and this has patently failed to transpire. Voters - and legislators - have been far more likely to inject personal partisanship into SC votes.

I'm sure there's some witty Johnsonism about persisting in a failure in the belief it will eventually right itself being the definition of...madness? idiocy? Not that the gamestaff are mad or idiots - which makes this all the more surprising.

[Ardchoille]

Ah, I see. Thanks, MSR. No, I'm NOT saying that. I'll edit the text of my post so it doesn't say it.

What I meant was that if offsites and the others you mentioned are to be included as reasons for the C&C, they can be, but the reference must be general. For example, "Commends Goobergunchia for his work in organising and hosting NSWiki" would be acceptable, if the rest of the proposal is also, similarly, OOC. But they can't link to the Wiki, or post a quote from its statement of intent, in the proposal, because those are open to change by factors outside the WA's ability to control.

Similarly, proposal writers could use arguments like the ones Eras suggested somewhere -- "moved the offsite of the South Pacific," I think it was, thus either precipitating or resolving a major argument that shaped the structure of the region (pretty obviously, this is not my area of expertise). But any links to, or quotes from, the offsites at that time would have to be outside the proposal, in the debate.

I think it depends on time/continuity. I don't like references to specific current-WA proposals because they could at any time be overthrown by a Repeal. But a reference to a proposal that was passed, and stayed passed, and is now forever frozen in time because it cannot be repealed, since the body that dealt with it no longer exists, seems legit. (Which means I'd better fix up that bit of the C&C rules, too.)

On the morality angle, I'm trying to explain that the admins' expectation of the SC is that its members will vote ethically on SC-type issues, just as their expectation of the GA is that its members will vote ethically on legislation. Asking one group to be ethical doesn't mean that previous groups haven't been ethical; it's asking that the new group also be ethical, in so far as its subject-matter makes that possible. (Yes, you could substitute "moral" for "ethical" here; no, I don't regard "moral" and "ethical" as always interchangeable; but bear with me for a bit.)

For example, I dislike raiding. So I could vote for every proposal that did the dirty on a raider in some way. But it wouldn't be ethical to do so. because raiding is legitimate and raiders have every right to raid within the rules of NS. However, it would be ethical to vote against the way a particular raider raided, if it seemed to me they had bullied, or abused, or picked on a quiet little region uninterested in that whole part ofthe game and doing nobody any harm by being uninterested. I'd be making a moral judgment: raiding like this is bad. A raider might well consider my morals idiotic, but if others have the same outlook, he'll still get condemned.

QoD, I agree with you that right now SC votes are more personal and partisan. The WA legislators have been through stages like that, too. That doesn't have to mean that they always will be that way. I feel a little absurd applying Big Issues to an internet game, but I do think that if those of good conscience speak out, it can have an effect. It should be possible to create an ethos of justice, not revenge.

(Of course, you've caught me on a good day. Cynicism is more my default state, but I'm trying to grow out of it.)

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

[EDIT]I misunderstood MSR's point here. I don't want to see specifics mentioned in the proposal if they're the sort of specifics that can change over time. However, the fact that, say, Goober organised and hosted NSWiki isn't going to change, no matter how the site itself, or the content of it, or its purpose, may change. So that can be mentioned in the text. If an offsite dies, it has still existed, and actions taken while it existed can form the basis for a C&C. But proof of those actions will no longer be available. [/EDIT]

OK. I think it's a mistake to allow that but it seems that the cow is already out of the barn and we're not going to make any attempt to get it back in, so I'll just shut up.

[Urgench]

On the morality angle, I'm trying to explain that the admins' expectation of the SC is that its members will vote ethically on SC-type issues, just as their expectation of the GA is that its members will vote ethically on legislation. Asking one group to be ethical doesn't mean that previous groups haven't been ethical; it's asking that the new group also be ethical, in so far as its subject-matter makes that possible. (Yes, you could substitute "moral" for "ethical" here; no, I don't regard "moral" and "ethical" as always interchangeable; but bear with me for a bit.)

For example, I dislike raiding. So I could vote for every proposal that did the dirty on a raider in some way. But it wouldn't be ethical to do so. because raiding is legitimate and raiders have every right to raid within the rules of NS. However, it would be ethical to vote against the way a particular raider raided, if it seemed to me they had bullied, or abused, or picked on a quiet little region uninterested in that whole part ofthe game and doing nobody any harm by being uninterested. I'd be making a moral judgment: raiding like this is bad. A raider might well consider my morals idiotic, but if others have the same outlook, he'll still get condemned.

QoD, I agree with you that right now SC votes are more personal and partisan. The WA legislators have been through stages like that, too. That doesn't have to mean that they always will be that way. I feel a little absurd applying Big Issues to an internet game, but I do think that if those of good conscience speak out, it can have an effect. It should be possible to create an ethos of justice, not revenge.

(Of course, you've caught me on a good day. Cynicism is more my default state, but I'm trying to grow out of it.)

But surely C&Cs and Liberations are partisan by their very nature no? They don't deal with policies, they don't address specific issues of a more or less universal relevance, they address specific nations or regions and ask the WA to pick a side on the thing the resolution asks it to do with regard to those nations or regions.


The entire process demands that one be a partisan of Googooistan in commending them, or being a partisan of the defenders seeking the removal of password protection of Bangbangville. Morality and ethics don't really enter in to it, especially since Liberation doesn't really have a credible moral dimension and C&Cs are really just popularity contests.

[Ardchoille]

Once you vote you'd be partisan, but before then, making the effort to sort out the "truth" of everyone's claims, trying to learn enough about the situation to decide for yourself, figuring out (if you're voting for your region) whether you go with their (democratic?) decision in favour or your own (better-informed?) decision against, should be enough to give your ethics a bit of a workout.

I agree with most of your assessment of SC situations: they don't deal with policies, they don't address specific issues of a more or less universal relevance, they do address specific nations or regions. But that doesn't mean that you should, or have to, let them be a popularity contest. Look at the arguments for "Repeal Condemn Nazi Europe".There are plenty of players saying the region's philosophy is not popular, but they shouldn't be condemned on that alone.

Um, interesting though this is (and I'm a sucker for such digressions; sorry), is there any specific change of rule wording that you think should come about because of it?