Ballotonia wrote:Now it says "you’re condemning an action that’s legal under NS rules".
So... if it's legal, it can't be condemned. And ofcourse, if it's illegal it can't be condemned either since that's Mod territory. Perhaps the "Note" should be part of the rule instead of something mentioned afterwards as if it's an aside comment?Raiding is legal under NS rules. The action itself couldn't be condemned.
For the life of me, I can't think of why that would have to be a rule. Similarly for condemning defending, or pretty much any other action taken by anyone anywhere in NS. Isn't it the purpose of the SC to form majority-held opinions on stuff that happens in NS?
Ballotonia
We went through this one wa-a-ay back when C&Cs first hit. It'd be like condemning the law of gravity for making people fall off cliffs. There are some parts of NS that are, well, Max-legal. Not admin-legal, not mod-legal, but built into the game mechanism legal. You can't change it, you can't even hope that, if enough people express an opinion on it, it will change. You can't condemn a GA ambassador for writing proposals, because that's what ambassadors do in the GA. But you can condemn them for writing BAD proposals, and you can commend them for writing GOOD proposals.
Similarly, you can't condemn players who play the raider-defender game for playing the raider-defender game, because that's what they do on NS. But you can condemn them for doing it cruelly, or condescendingly, or bullyingly, or anything else that gets people's backs up. And you can commend them for doing it kindly -- "Excuse me, just passing through, we'll be gone in, like, two secs, you won't know we're here".
There is no point in allowing the SC to commend or condemn game-legal actions. That would, effectively, be one part of the game saying that another part of the game is wrong. When it's said on the forums it sparks flame wars. We should not be obliged to spend a week cementing a flame-war into a resolution.
Whatever the SC 's opinion of the different parts of the game, they're not going to go away: they're the world of NS. So it would be as silly for the SC to waste its time condemning a game-legal action as it would for the RL UN to spend its time condemning Mt Everest, or air-breathing.
A proposal that tries to do that will get turfed. But a proposal that tries to condemn the way that it's done, won't.
I could change it to "you can't condemn an action that is possible within the game mechanism", if that will make it clearer. I was trying to keep it simple. "Game mechanism" is a bit off-putting because newbies won't know what the game mechanism does. Whereas "raiding is legal" seems easy to understand.
EDIT 1:
Ballotonia wrote:Isn't it the purpose of the SC to form majority-held opinions on stuff that happens in NS?
No, it's the purpose of the SC to form majority-held opinions on player-performed stuff that happens on NS. Majority opinion might, in theory, influence players; it won't influence programming.
EDIT 2: CR, plagiarism is going to get any kind of proposal turfed, so I don't see the need to say that again here, which is strictly about what gets C&Cs turfed. It should go in the SC rules overview that Eras did,