Commend & Condemn

[Cobdenia]

I think a compromised can be reached between "GPers shouldn't get tags" and full on "nudge nudge wink wink" type proposals - it can be done by keeping it vague. Use terms that are relevent to war and GP, e.g

NOTING that the tendency of Carlsberg to organise a number of allies with the intent of invading, without provocation, other regions

DRAWING attention to their recent invasion of Coorslightistan

FURTHER NOTING previous invasions of Guinnesstopia, Bass, and the Old Peculiars

CONDEMNING there actions and these invasions

The WA, hereby,

CONDEMNS the Democratic Peoples Republic of Carlserg

or

NOTING the series of attempted invasions performed by Spad, Sopwithia, Fockertania and the Bristols against the peaceful Nieuportians

MINDFUL that these attacks did not succeed

BELIEVING that was due to the support the region of Nieuport recieved from the region of Albatross

The WA, hereby,

COMMENDS the region of Albatross

Nice and vague, no lies, no winks, and keeps the fourth wall standing. Plus, it means that GP'ers can be honoured or dishonoured.


However, there is one other lot of players, who play the game differently from the above categories (which, I feel, can be honoured) which I cannot for the life work out how to include them in the honours: the nation crafters. People who spend a lot of time working on the details of their nations, have massive NSwiki pages about many subjects, and have spent a lot of time on them - the two that spring to mind are myself and Omigodtheykilledkenny - both of us having highly detailed nations. Should players like that not be so honoured?

[Absolvability]

Yea, no kidding. These are excellent examples, I think. Furthermore, in case of RPers, nothing would be harmed by sprucing the vague proposals up a bit with a little RP. Which is to say... more specific examples derived from an RP.

the two that spring to mind are myself and Omigodtheykilledkenny - both of us having highly detailed nations. Should players like that not be so honoured?

How do you mean? I think you would be able to include detail into the C&C. In fact I think this would be highly beneficial. If you mean to say that Commendations should be given for the effort you, as a RPer, put in, I should think THAT would be breaking the 'fourth wall.'

[Cobdenia]

I think the difficulty would be stemmed from the almost neccessity of breaking the fourth wall. That said, I suppose, it wouldn't be difficult to commend or condemn a nation for aspects of it's nation as crafted by the player, e.g. condemning the Kennyite CSA, commending the Fernanda administration, etc. In many ways, it would be a variation of RP, so not too much to worry about...

Looking through the thread, and seeing various ideas, I think I can come up with a draft list of rules that should satisfy other WA-ites, and bear in mind the current rules, and not keep others groups - naturally, I won't mind the mods tinkering...


Though if they are adopted, they get called the Cobdenian Protocals, right?

[Cookesland]

So much to take in...and I'm still getting used to this new layout


Overall I like the idea, but I think The C &C's should be separated from the other proposals. Perhaps in the future the number of Commendations and Condemnations could be listed at the bottom of the proposal itself?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

*snip*

Aside from the "links" thing, I rather liked Ardchoille's rules; they should be given another hearing, methinks.

[Cobdenia]

Yeah, I'm pretty much just building upon them, factoring in the other reasons why one might commend and condemn

[Cobdenia]

Draft:

Commendations and Condemnations operate under much the same rules as the other proposals, with certain exceptions. The must do what they say on the tin (so no commending nations when the text actually says your condemning them), must not be grossly offensive, and must not try to change the game works, and, perhaps hardest to forget, must not break the forth wall - you are commending a nation, not the bloke or blokette behind the screen.

The branding rule for Commendations and Condemnations is different, and is as follows:


Branding in Commendations and Condemnations

Due to the nature of these proposals, unlike other proposals, you are allowed to mention individual nation states, and regions, naturally enough, whereas doing such a thing in any other type of proposal will get you deleted. You are also allowed to refer to roleplayed aspects, and individual characters (though as the nation is honoured, and not the character, it can mention them, but not honour or dishonour a character alone). However, it remains illegal to put you nation’s, ambassador’s, sexy secretary’s or whatever’s name at the bottom, or start with “the Nation of Maxtopia wishes to…” or whathaveyou. The same rule about co-authors applies as with regular resolutions. Howeever, there are some rules:

Worthiness

Commendations and Condemnations must be for a reason, and such a reason should, ideally, be verifiable. You cannot just commend someone being kind of cool, or because they’re “super”. I appreciate that putting down verifiable links is somewhat difficult for gameplayers, but easy enough for roleplayers. Links are not permitted in proposals, as they break the forth wall, but should be included in the opening post of any WA forum discussion. References to actual gameplay functions that are impossible to replicate in the real world are not permitted - such as the password protection of regions, or the expulsion of nations, or the changing of the fact book entry. However, they are permitted if you can workout a roleplayed version of events, though such must not effectively entail a lie. This primarily applies to invading and the like, which I’ll come on to later.

Commending a nation due to it’s performance in the World Assembly is permitted, and as such references to previous resolutions (WA and UN), even if repealed, and where in other proposals such may be considered a house of cards violation, are permitted in commendations and Condemnations.

Writing a Commendation or Condemnation:

Whilst there are manifold reasons why you may wish to honour a nation, the most important things one might do so are categorised as roleplay and gameplay. Gameplay refers to aspects of the coded game (excluding the WA, which I shall deal with in the roleplay section), and primarily consists of raiding, defending, etc, regions. I shall deal with gameplay first:

Honouring or Dishouring a Gameplayer

First of all, bear in mind you cannot break the fourth wall. Treat the nations as nations, not as players, when writing your commendation or condemnation, and avoid going into too much detail. Keep it vague, using terms such as “invading”, “defending”, which can be construed as normal military terms, and don’t mention the delegacy, as it is unnecessary. If they get the delegacy, it is a successful invasion, if they don’t, unsuccessful. Just keep it vague and simple - we don’t want to be going into detail about several thousand helicopters transporting nations thousands of miles to capture a delegacy. It may be what is, in effect, happening in the game, but, let’s face it, it is a bit of a silly thing to write in a resolution. Examples of the sort of simplicity for this is as follows:

Condemning an invasion leader, or a invading region

NOTING that the tendency of Carlsberg to organise a number of allies with the intent of invading, without provocation, other regions

DRAWING attention to their recent invasion of Coorslightistan

FURTHER NOTING previous invasions of Guinnesstopia, Bass, and the Old Peculiars

CONDEMNING there actions and these invasions

The WA, hereby,

CONDEMNS the Democratic Peoples Republic of Carlsberg

Or, if you wish to commend a group that came to your aid

NOTING the series of attempted invasions performed by Spad, Sopwithia, Fockertania and the Bristols against the peaceful Nieuportians

MINDFUL that these attacks did not succeed

BELIEVING that was due to the support the region of Nieuport recieved from the region of Albatross

The WA, hereby,

COMMENDS the region of Albatross

And variations thereof depending on the circumstances. Note the intentional lack of detail - this is necessary to prevent a metagaming violation


Roleplaying

There are numerous reasons in roleplay why you might wish to honour a nation, and I shall divide them into two sections: roleplay (nation crafting, character development, war, trade, etc), and WA roleplay (resolution writing, debating, etc)


This is perhaps the trickiest of the three to work out, as, once again, any references to the abilities or lack of such of the person behind the monitor are prohibited. However, for example, you may condemn a nation for role-played non-compliance of a resolution, or deciding to kill all of it’s prisoners or declaring war on a neighbour because they have bad haircuts, or commend it for it‘s lack of corruption, it‘s liberal trade policy, the aid it sends to stricken nations, etc. These are just examples, but you get the idea. Bear in mind, though, that, whilst you may mention an individual character, be sure to find a way that his/her/it’s/they’re actions can be seen as a reason for they’re entire nation to be honoured.

WA roleplay

Perhaps the simplest of all the categories, but again, watch that forth wall. Commend an ambassador, and his nation, for their efforts, their debating skills, their productivity - not the real person

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I like it, but Ard's rules were dismissed so out-of-hand; I don't have high hopes for this set.

The "roleplay your gameplay actions" thing would really confuse some people, I think. There are some players with no concept of IC vs OOC whatsoever.

I wish all the C&C's could be fun and lighthearted, and even if they did touch on GP, they could gently allude to it in a relatively silly way, like in Repeal "Max Barry Day"... but I understand that, as with regular proposals, not every writer is so clever, and you're going to take a lot of bad with the good.

[Quintessence of Dust]

By the way, Todd McCloud is doing the rounds on TG spamming, so we may have a test case to vote on very soon. I strongly urge the moderators to delete Commend Kandarin or Commend Equilism if they reach the floor, until the rules are actually worked out.

[Kandarin]

By the way, Todd McCloud is doing the rounds on TG spamming, so we may have a test case to vote on very soon. I strongly urge the moderators to delete Commend Kandarin or Commend Equilism if they reach the floor, until the rules are actually worked out.

I'm aware that this probably sounds selfish, given that one of those is trying to commend me, but...what's wrong with Todd's proposals? They give clear reasons for the commendations (or condemnations) they are trying to grant; anyone who thinks those are invalid reasons can simply not endorse the proposal, or vote against it if they actually make it to the floor. The 'problem' is that they're not worded in the WA's traditional RP style, but in the style of a gameplay system you're not familiar with.

I don't see how those - or anything in Gameplay - could be modified to fit the WA's old style without putting it into terms that are totally alien to the reasons why Gameplay people would want to condemn/commend in the first place. Obviously it's [violet]'s call, but it seems to me that placing the limitations you seek would lock out Gameplay people forever. And since the process of actually voting through Resolutions is very much affected by Gameplay, this'd hardly ever be used.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

With the debacle this is shaping up to be, would that be such a bad thing?

[Kandarin]

With the debacle this is shaping up to be, would that be such a bad thing?

So far I've seen a dozen people express negative viewpoints on it, all in this thread (and I'm being extremely generous - most of those were not negative). Everyone else I've talked to or seen talking about it has been expressing things in "hey, that sounds cool" terms.

I understand why the community of WA proposal vetters/WA-RPers is dissatisfied with this change from their usual domain, but that's not a reason to deny the rest of the game the opportunity to enjoy it.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Great, let's just allow everyone on the site the ignore the rules, because this is such a cool thing to have!

Do we really need to rehash the "Max Barry Day" incident again? Apparently, that proposal would be legal now.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I understand why the community of WA proposal vetters/WA-RPers is dissatisfied with this change from their usual domain, but that's not a reason to deny the rest of the game the opportunity to enjoy it.

Then it is it unreasonable to ask that the World Assembly have affect over the rest of the NS world? Violet has to understand that nobody has yet been dead-set against this. What most of us don't like is the invasion on our traditions and regulations that have been years in the making, by people that would have just as much of an uproar if us WA regulars invaded their turf. What we're asking for is a set of regulations that would ensure that the integrity and tradition of the World Assembly isn't infringed upon because everybody outside the WA thinks C&Cs are 'cool'. As much as the administrators don't want NationStates to be split up in to cliques, it already is, and has been for quite a long time.

[Quintessence of Dust]

By the way, Todd McCloud is doing the rounds on TG spamming, so we may have a test case to vote on very soon. I strongly urge the moderators to delete Commend Kandarin or Commend Equilism if they reach the floor, until the rules are actually worked out.

I'm aware that this probably sounds selfish, given that one of those is trying to commend me, but...what's wrong with Todd's proposals?

Off the top of my head:

1. The rules haven't been worked out yet. It's silly to vote on any proposal - even "Commend Quintessence of Dust for Being The Most Fantastically Awesome Lover I Have Ever Known, I Think I Saw God" - until we have the rule set worked out. To repeat: this objection applies to any and every C&C proposal. (For precedent: the moderators imposed a moratorium on Bookkeeping proposals until the revised category rules could be worked out; eventually, they decided not to use the category and delisted.) This is the most fundamental objection, and I do not see that rebuttal of any or all of my subsequent arguments could negate this one.

2. They break the fourth wall. As Kelssek mentioned earlier, commending regional gameplay simply makes no sense from the perspective of the World Assembly. What is this "player behind Kandarin" as far as our Ambassadors are concerned?

3. They violate existing proposal rules on MetaGaming by mentioning regional play, delegacy, ejection, etc.

4. They violate existing proposal rules on RL references in the case of "Condemn Macedon"; let's put aside the fact that the reference to Kandarin's player is itself a RL reference of a sort).

5. They represent a fundamental break from the style of WA play that has not just been the norm but the absolute monopoly since the very inception of the NS game. (That it was an RP-oriented style intended should be apparent from the nature of the proposal categories and the Fight the Axis of Evil resolution originally coded in.) The UN/WA has never acknowledged gameplay: why should it do so now, just because a couple of new categories have appeared.

They give clear reasons for the commendations (or condemnations) they are trying to grant; anyone who thinks those are invalid reasons can simply not endorse the proposal, or vote against it if they actually make it to the floor.

This argument can be equally applied to proposals to give the WA an army/police force, or proposals mandating the killing of brown people. Like it or not, the WA proposal system as it stands does not operate in a laissez-faire, let-the-people-decide environment: certain types of proposal are a priori illegal. There is no reason to hold these categories to a different standard.

The 'problem' is that they're not worded in the WA's traditional RP style, but in the style of a gameplay system you're not familiar with.

I am perfectly familiar with it. Why, in the long long ago I believe I had an account on the RRA forums. Instead of calling me ignorant, perhaps responding to the substance of my arguments would more amply demonstrate the qualities for which you are being commended.

I don't see how those - or anything in Gameplay - could be modified to fit the WA's old style without putting it into terms that are totally alien to the reasons why Gameplay people would want to condemn/commend in the first place.

I find it bizarre that you do not see how this argument can be turned on its head. There is no way of modifying the WA style to suit Gameplayers without introducing terms fundamentally alien to the established mode of WA play. (Which begs the question: what was wrong with the way we were playing the game?)

Obviously it's [violet]'s call, but it seems to me that placing the limitations you seek would lock out Gameplay people forever.

"Gameplay people" have never been locked out from participating in the WA. There have been many famous instances of their involvement: Myrth's last minute politicking on The 40 Hour Workweek, Minineenee's vote switch a few minutes before the deadline for The Transgender Equality Act, Gatesville's claiming of "victories" for resolutions they took no part in passing, the passage of legislation written by players predominantly known as gameplayers - Goobergunchia, for example.

And since the process of actually voting through Resolutions is very much affected by Gameplay, this'd hardly ever be used.

I don't follow your premise: we've never had a problem getting proposals to the floor before. But insofar as you assert these categories might be used sparingly - is that necessarily a bad thing? A commendation, surely, denotes exceptional achievement: if we spend every day voting on them, we'll a) never have time for actual WA proposals (I admit this argument is probably of little consequence to those who ignore all in-character WA play) and b) devalue the notion of being commended by the WA in the first place.

Commendations might only be given out to a few players? Good! The system works!

----

All of the above notwithstanding, I had an epiphany while waiting for the bus to my hotel. (Thinking about NS in the bus line? :| )

Is there any reason the C&C system needs to be attached to the WA in the first place? Could it be detached (and the commendation be issued by "NationStates", "The World", or something else)? That way:
1. There would be no confusion with existing resolutions.
2. The proposal queue would be kept clear for actual proposals, as would the voting docket.
3. There would be no breaking of the fourth wall (and consequent destruction of the RP world some of us have spent years contributing to).
4. Non-WA nations could be involved.

[Ardchoille]

Kandarin, the problem for current WA players is that this category breaches six -- well, five -- years' worth of rules worked out for proposals that make laws. We haven't had "we like/don't like" proposals before; even ones that said "affirms" had to do something in terms of WA nations' laws. They've been nation-based and largely forum-based playing of the game of NS (which, in deference to regular categorisations of NS, I won't call gameplaying).

As I understand [violet]'s explanation of their purpose, they're an attempt to do two things: integrating the various sub-sections of the game a little more, and giving the WA a moral dimension. The latter apparently operates in this fashion: the whole of NS, its players and their constructs, condemns or commends X, where X can be a player, his construct, his real-time or roleplayed actions, attitudes or ethics or his construct's actions, attitudes or ethics.

This is different from the existing WA remit, which took effect on the constructs only, with "constructs" being limited to nations and their inhabitants, not extended to individual characters.

I'm working on the assumption that since the new ones have different effects from the old, the rules can be different. Since they don't have the statistical effects of the others, the technicalities that govern the others can be bypassed. The metagaming rule can be broken in this category only. This is a working assumption, not a rule.

I know you (Kandarin) don't regard Gameplay references as metagaming, and of course they're not -- in gameplay operations. In WA operations, we have a rule specifically stating that various kinds of Gameplay references are metagaming. It's not a player's opinion, or a stubborn refusal to acknowledge another player's preferences: it's a game rule. I've quoted it, others have summarised it; it lists various concepts that can't be mentioned in proposals. Any player, WA regular or not, who wants to write a proposal in any of the old categories has to observe the existing constraints.

If they applied in the new category, however, it would be impossible to write proposals like this legally. It breaches the branding rule and the metagaming rule, makes frequent reference to (though it doesn't try to change) game mechanics and contains phrases ("the player of", "off-site and on-site" and "NationStates") that, under existing rules, are illegal by being Real World (RW) references:

Description: RECOGNIZING the player of Kandarin as a leader in various aspects of NationStates.

OBSERVING his tireless efforts in maintaining order, stability, and leadership in a "collecting" region without means of ejecting or banning the competition.

VIEWING his knowledge, teaching, and leadership in NationStates roleplay, in both in character and out of character aspects, for off-site and on-site forums.

OFFICALLY praises the player behind the nation of Kandarin and recognizes his achievements with a commendation from the World Assembly.

Yet this seems to me exactly the sort of thing [violet] is trying to encourage (and I don't say that only because I personally agree with every word of the proposal ).

(So, QoD, I won't be deleting anyone's Commend/Condemn proposals yet unless they're empty of argument or blatant flaming. At the moment I'm approaching them as cricket organisers approach the difference between one-day cricket and Test cricket: different games, different rules, different skill-sets. Whether that approach is feasible in the long-term is still under discussion.)

EDIT: Don't get snippy, people. This isn't a turf war. It's a new aspect of the game, and the discussion should focus on how it can best be applied without losing other attractive aspects. [violet] is not doing an OMAC, just handing it down, saying "thus it shall be" and deleting anyone who objects. This is NS. Admins are not the enemy. Other players are not the enemy. Keep it polite and address the argument.

EDIT 2: , QoD. Your epiphany goes one step further than I'm suggesting. I see it as possible within the WA provided that this category is regarded as a special case, equivalent to an assemblage suspending Standing Orders (and possibly party lines) for a Conscience Vote, an honour, a special event or a eulogy.

[[violet]]

these new categories specially exempt from metagaming rules, or not?

Well, as I said before, my understanding of the Metagaming rule is that the WA can't pretend to control things it doesn't. As an example, the sticky uses a proposal that claims to control regions. Now okay, here are two new resolution types that do let the WA affect regions, but that only invalidates the example, not the rule.

So from where I sit, there's no conflict. But I understand that Metagaming is viewed differently by different people, so more discussion below.

It doesn't explain things a whole lot when in one post you claim of course the rules are going to be enforced, and in the next you're seemingly rebuking us for being snobs and wanting to ruin the game for everybody else.

Heh, well, first of all, there's no contradiction between those two points. But also the second one isn't true: I said nothing remotely like that. I'm here trying to gather feedback from you guys and give you what you want. If it's a desire to stay separate from gameplay, then okay, say that, because I can address it. You don't need to be defensive about it; it's a valid desire. But be clear about it, because if I don't know what the real problem is, I can't help.

the tendency in the WA is to, largely, ignore RPed events and gameplay going on elsewhere, the latter being practically a necessity (which is ironic considering that WA membership is integral to invading/defending).

This is the part that's surprised me. It seems to me that the World Assembly is clearly a subset of gameplay, in that the WA exists within the larger gameplay world. You need to follow gameplay rules to become a WA member, your ability to submit proposals and your influence in votes on them is purely dictated by gameplay rules, and the resolutions passed have a gameplay effect, tweaking nation stats.

But the impression I'm getting from this thread is that many people don't consider the WA part of gameplay; that they consider the WA mechanics divorced from its purpose, and see no place for gameplay references in WA proposals, ever.

I have also been surprised by the general resistance to C&Cs, including the push to have them moved to a separate place away from other resolutions, as I would have thought that if anybody was in favor of increasing the WA's power, it would be WA core members. It wasn't too long ago that the UN/WA seemed to be stagnating quite badly. But I'm seeing here a pretty strong preference for leaving the WA alone.

I would like to understand the scope of this feeling, because here is the scoop: the C&C resolutions are actually just the tip of the iceberg. They are intended as the first step in a much broader ramping up of World Assembly's power over gameplay. It is hoped that this will reinvigorate the WA and introduce new purpose to an organization that has, over six and a half years, already debated pretty much every kind of legislation there is. I can't reveal details, but there are proposals for committees and the election of WA officers, for example, and a resolution type that could break a regional password-lock.

Now these are all just ideas. If the WA core doesn't want change and would prefer the WA to stay exactly as it is, then we can shelve it: there are plenty of other areas of the game that could use attention instead. Maybe we could carve off a Legislative Branch of the WA that passes resolutions for its own amusement and is totally removed from gameplay. Although I would be disappointed with that, because the WA is supposed to bring players together, not wall them off into cliques. And I think the community here, which has been exceptional in devising its own rules and traditions for WA proposals, would be valuable in managing the challenge of the WA's expanding power, and drafting new standards of governance.

So let me know: an evolving WA: good or bad?

[Naivetry]

• Gameplay - This nation's/region's actions in the Raiding/Defending game merit such a badge.
• Roleplay - This nation's/region's actions in Roleplaying on NS or offsite forums merit such a badge.
• WA Involvement - This nation's/region's actions in the World Assembly, through the debates or the legislation process, merit such a badge

There's a lot more to Gameplay than Raiding/Defending, which is no longer the primary political or even military issue. Maybe describe it as "This nation's/region's actions in regional military and/or political activity merit such a badge."

There actually is some international law in NS promoted by gameplayers, such as the Convention on Forum Destruction (or whatever it was called).

The COPS treaty, yeah. (Convention on Off-site Property Security.)

Since the purpose of C&C seems largely regional, is it possible to make this a regional tool, instead of a World Assembly tool? Essentially, regions themselves would be able to commend or condemn their own regionmates, using their own unique set of rules and traditions. Otherwise, I'm still in favor of serious regulation of C&C. These resolutions would need to be of purely international nature, first of all; this means no condemning nations because they've violated your region's constitution. (The Commonwealth's recent usurping seems to come to mind. My email inbox was flooded when somebody overthrew the King.) This also means no commending nations because they've done such a great job recruiting for a region.

There's not much point in having a region tool; those of us interested in awarding our region mates have usually done it already. From the Gameplay point of view, this should be a game-wide recognition thing for game-wide accomplishments... where someone had contributed significantly to inter-regional affairs, not just to his or her own region. After all, there are at least as many parochial, regional heroes as there are active regions... WA-recognition would have to be for events and contributions that made a difference to Gameplay as a whole.

From that point of view, the situation in The Commonwealth would have been a perfect place to use the C&C feature. It is fundamentally international - any regional activity is more than purely national, by definition. Now, most of the time the inter-regional Gameplay community is not going to care if Jimmy Politician has made wonderful progress in enhancing democratic representation within his own region, Regiontopia. But they may care a lot if Jimmy Politician voids Regiontopia's Constitution, causes a civil war, and splits the citizenry of Regiontopia in half, because suddenly all the treaties Regiontopia had signed, the military agreements Regiontopia had made, and the embassies and relationships that Regiontopia had formed with Mother Pacifica and the Alliance of Awesome Defenders are broken. That impacts the rest of Gameplay directly and might deserve a Condemnation.

It's harder to make a positive contribution to multiple Gameplay communities, or to Gameplay as a whole. There is a small group of very skilled and dedicated players that sits at the top of the political hierarchy - the people to whom other people listen, across the game - and not all of them are well-liked enough or well-known enough to merit a Commendation. There may be an initial rush to recognize some of them, but once that dies down I would expect far more individual or regional Condemnations as justified by political events in Gameplay.

Great, let's just allow everyone on the site the ignore the rules, because this is such a cool thing to have!

It's not a matter of ignoring the rules, but of writing new ones to cover a new category of Resolution. We don't have to give up and let the bulls run loose in the china shop just yet.

I gave some examples above of what I think Gameplay national C&C's would need - activity that affected our world as a whole, not just one region. Similar things could be done for RP - nations or regions as a whole could be Commended, while individuals in those nations should probably only be mentioned at most... if everyone's head of state could get a Commendation after solving X political crisis in their own nation, the list would become ridiculously crowded.

So, granted that some of the Gameplay stuff currently in the proposal queue shatters the fourth wall into a thousand shimmering pieces, purely IC stuff needs rules, too. This one, for example, doesn't have much to do with a nation or a region. It singles out an individual from a nation, rather than the... I don't know... exceptional judgment and perspicacity of the leadership of the nation of Ardchoille in selecting such qualified ambassadors and in contributing the funds from their national treasury to maintain the WA Stranger's Bar. But that's the sort of stuff we can try to hammer out.

I'm not actually adverse to framing Gameplay matters in language ambiguous enough to be accepted as up to WA standards. I think it could be done - language is a wonderfully stretchy thing. We could commend Kandarin for the nation's "lasting political and cultural influence on nations worldwide in many spheres of interaction" or some such thing... though in Kandarin's case we would have to make clear that we were talking about him in Gameplay, not RP terms. Yes, it would be talking in code and not clearly stating what we meant by the award... but it would be clear enough for those of us in Gameplay to decipher (especially with the help of a proposal thread or TG campaign), and perhaps fuzzy enough for WA regulars to overlook.

I sympathize with y'all on that, btw, and would support having C&C's somehow separated from normal proposals for that reason... *sees [violet]'s post* ...in whichever direction that separation happens.

[Quintessence of Dust]

[T]he impression I'm getting from this thread is that many people don't consider the WA part of gameplay; that they consider the WA mechanics divorced from its purpose, and see no place for gameplay references in WA proposals, ever.

Correct. That's how it's always been...

I have also been surprised by the general resistance to C&Cs, including the push to have them moved to a separate place away from other resolutions, as I would have thought that if anybody was in favor of increasing the WA's power, it would be WA core members. It wasn't too long ago that the UN/WA seemed to be stagnating quite badly. But I'm seeing here a pretty strong preference for leaving the WA alone.

This is very interesting. When was the WA stagnating, in your opinion?

I would like to understand the scope of this feeling, because here is the scoop: the C&C resolutions are actually just the tip of the iceberg. They are intended as the first step in a much broader ramping up of World Assembly's power over gameplay. It is hoped that this will reinvigorate the WA and introduce new purpose to an organization that has, over six and a half years, already debated pretty much every kind of legislation there is. I can't reveal details, but there are proposals for committees and the election of WA officers, for example, and a resolution type that could break a regional password-lock.

To quote one of the more infamous WA players: I think I just threw up in my mouth. You're not serious? Please please please please please please, if it helps I will fly to Australia, get down on my knees and beg, this will destroy the WA community. We debate torture and arms control and free trade, not regional passwords and who gets to wear the Delegate Hat today. Would it help if we provided some examples of WA-themed roleplay? The way the WA business has been done on the forum, for the most part reflected in the proposals submitted and voted in, our nations are represented by Ambassadors who are people from our nations. Region-crashing is, at the absolute most, some distant noise in the background.

We haven't debated pretty much every kind of legislation there is. And even if we had, why would that be a reason to change things: surely it means we'll get better at it! The proposal I wrote about landmines was infinitely improved, whatever flaws it may still possessed, for having been the product of years of different landmine-related conversations.

Now these are all just ideas. If the WA core doesn't want change and would prefer the WA to stay exactly as it is, then we can shelve it: there are plenty of other areas of the game that could use attention instead.

No offence, but this is a dicey wording. You're implying that if we oppose this change, we oppose all change. Not true. There are several WA-related improvements suggested in Unibot's collated sticky: removing some categories, adding others, adding a Burn function, adding a Preview button, increasing the character limit, increasing the quorum threshold, and more. I doubt any two WA members agree on all of them, but they're there. I'm sure we could come up with others if you feel the WA desperately needs change (again, though, I see little to justify this: the move to the new forum produced more activity than we'd seen in weeks).

Maybe we could carve off a Legislative Branch of the WA that passes resolutions for its own amusement and is totally removed from gameplay. Although I would be disappointed with that, because the WA is supposed to bring players together, not wall them off into cliques. And I think the community here, which has been exceptional in devising its own rules and traditions for WA proposals, would be valuable in managing the challenge of the WA's expanding power, and drafting new standards of governance.

But...isn't this what we have now? I mean, the "Legislative Branch" is the WA forum, which has no relationship to Gameplay. Formalising that just seems like devaluing what we've been doing all this time.

So let me know: an evolving WA: good or bad?

Bad. An amoeba is preferable to a baby-eating nuclear wolf, even if the latter is more highly evolved. No wait, a nuclear wolf would be awesome.

Ok, I don't think WA players have anything against the organization evolving, but what you're suggesting seems to be not so much an evolution but a revolution, changing it into a Gameplay-based organization, after six years of a different existence. We should be reduced to discussing whether a Nazi-themed region should be allowed to kick out Jewish-themed nations, when beforehand we wrote two resolutions on Genocide and roleplayed resultant humanitarian intervention? We should be voting who gets to be a "WA officer" when before we were voting to abolish slavery? (Or a less self-serving example.)

I would not wish to be a part of such a game. If that seems regressive or conservative or reactionary, then I guess tag me up as such.

[Quintessence of Dust]

(So, QoD, I won't be deleting anyone's Commend/Condemn proposals yet unless they're empty of argument or blatant flaming. At the moment I'm approaching them as cricket organisers approach the difference between one-day cricket and Test cricket: different games, different rules, different skill-sets. Whether that approach is feasible in the long-term is still under discussion.)

Well, you see, one day cricket is pants. Problem solved.

More seriously, I was just, as mentioned, following the precedent from the introduction of the Bookkeeping category: preventing any resolutions reaching the floor might fall afoul of subsequent rules, thereby causing Iron Felix's head to explode. All the water in the Vastiva Memorial Reflecting Pool wouldn't get the stains out of the carpet.

[Glen-Rhodes]

So let me know: an evolving WA: good or bad?

Since you've asked for a clear and concise opinion: yes, but only if we get to make the rules. After all, it is our venue. In the end, if these additions end up deteriorating the World Assembly, IIers can go back to II, GPers can go back to RMBs, and RPers can go back to doing whatever it is that they do. We're left with the mess, if any of us stick with the World Assembly that long. Granted that level of destruction might be exaggeration, our traditions deteriorating to ensure that the WA is a big tent isn't that far-fetched.

[Kandarin]

So let me know: an evolving WA: good or bad?

Since you've asked for a clear and concise opinion: yes, but only if we get to make the rules. After all, it is our venue.

And this is where things get into a gray area with Gameplay. Gameplay actions - regional management, elections, defense, warfare - are all tied into the WA. You may have constructed massive RP systems organized around WA legislation, but we're the ones who have constructed countless constitutions, forged alliances, fought an entire cold war (or three), and so forth to determine who ought to be the WA representative of various regions. The foundation of all Gameplay interplay is WA mechanics. Now, sometimes that has repercussions in your legislating corner of the WA, but I must admit that usually it doesn't. Still, we've got as much tied up in the WA as you do and we think of ourselves as WA participants as much as you do.

[Zemnaya Svoboda]

Great, let's just allow everyone on the site the ignore the rules, because this is such a cool thing to have!

Do we really need to rehash the "Max Barry Day" incident again? Apparently, that proposal would be legal now.

Right, because permitting people to submit WA resolutions which are not In Character as you conceive it would be equivalent to that.

So let me know: an evolving WA: good or bad?

Since you've asked for a clear and concise opinion: yes, but only if we get to make the rules. After all, it is our venue. In the end, if these additions end up deteriorating the World Assembly, IIers can go back to II, GPers can go back to RMBs, and RPers can go back to doing whatever it is that they do. We're left with the mess, if any of us stick with the World Assembly that long. Granted that level of destruction might be exaggeration, our traditions deteriorating to ensure that the WA is a big tent isn't that far-fetched.

In all seriousness, the ability to demonstrate collective opinion on gameplay actions in this manner sounds very interesting and constructive. The intrusion of one "tribe" onto another's "turf" is even better, in my opinion, as the sky-high walls of separation between parts of NationStates do nothing to further participation. This "WA tribe" in particular I think is often rather intimidating to outsiders. I think that the ability for those who haven't yet found gameplay to see it in action without themselves being "hurt" to be a very good idea. In return, I think this will bring more interest in WA activity from the gameplay "tribe"-- if they start looking at WA proposals again, they may become interested in the more national-policy legislation you work on.

Speaking of interaction between Gameplay and the WA-- we in Gameplay have always had great power here, we've just often focused on other things. The decisions of the off-site (gameplay-oriented) Feeder Region communities, as well as those of other large regions which are often be run by Gameplay-oriented figures, have always had tremendous influence in WA votes. I think it would greatly benefit your ability to influence WA decisions from here if the voters in the off-site votes were more often interested in this forum.

Finally, I must agree with Kandarin's description of how the WA is the lifeblood of the Gameplay community. It is the very air we breathe.

[Unibot]

They violate existing proposal rules on MetaGaming by mentioning regional play, delegacy, ejection,

Personally, I never understood MetaGaming as such - I've just followed along with the timeless ol' tradition of not mentioning regions or nations in proposals to avoid them from being laughed at in the Silly/Illegal thread. But Metagaming really shouldn't include the game world, should it? Regulars have been slowly separating the WA from the Gameplay world, but they must understand that they are as interconnected as possible - how does one raid? He/she gains the WA delegacy. Therefore why shouldn't we be mentioning regional politics and nations, aka. 'Gameplay' stuff in resolutions. Though personally, I'd say it is good form to not mention specifics like nations or regions in many specific resolutions, but that's it, good form ... not illegal or metagaming or whatever you'd like to call it.

I have this sneaking suspicion what we'll be seeing is a transformation of the region, from a sort of aesthetic/communication thing to a fully functional autonomy (a large, collective nation) which has issues, and ratings to effect. At which point, the WA regulars will have to open up to agknowledging these communities existence - for there will be resolution categories that effect regions' stats. Thats' my dream of the future NationStates atleast.

One thing I must ask of our administators is to give the WA the power to bookkeep it's self. With a bookkeeping category, the institution will be able to dictate itself on its future proceedings with regions and nations - its something that will help smooth this, sort-of snarky Gameplay v.s WA Regulars thingy-doodle that is cropping up.

*Nods at Cobdenia's ruleset*

I don't mind those rules at all, as I've stated before, I'm leaning towards a WA free from persecuting 'metagaming' of the traditional sense in anything - but if we try to stick by the old traditions, that'd be the way to go with it, I think.

[Urgench]

OK since no one seems even remotely interested in answering or addressing anything I have to say ( except Absolvability) I'll presume I'm talking to the ether.

My question from the beginning has been, why can't the w.a. demand more direct control over other aspects of game when these aspects of the game become the day to day business of the w.a. ? Handing out gold stars isn't actual influence. and if Gameplayers and IIers get to ignore the w.a. for all other purposes what is the point in all this window dressing ?

I'm with Quintessence of Dust, I have no interest in making motions about which region rules and why which regional delegate is better than the rest. What is interesting about that to players who have developed a politics to deal with issues like discrimination, possession of nuclear weapons and economic union ?

And this is where things get into a gray area with Gameplay. Gameplay actions - regional management, elections, defense, warfare - are all tied into the WA. You may have constructed massive RP systems organized around WA legislation, but we're the ones who have constructed countless constitutions, forged alliances, fought an entire cold war (or three), and so forth to determine who ought to be the WA representative of various regions. The foundation of all Gameplay interplay is WA mechanics. Now, sometimes that has repercussions in your legislating corner of the WA, but I must admit that usually it doesn't. Still, we've got as much tied up in the WA as you do and we think of ourselves as WA participants as much as you do.

Right OK Kandarin, so you guys have as much invested as us in the w.a., so why is its law so readily ignored among Gameplayers ?

You can't have it both ways, we're either in this together or we're not.