SC Rules discussion

[Minions Stadium]

for me, it would take a lot of work to create a proposal for the WA, but since I'm a member, all I have to do is: vote for or against any issue being debated. To make a long story short, I guess what it comes down to is: it's better to vote on legislation than to make it from scratch.

[JURISDICTIONS]

The At Vote is the SC is concerning.

[AT VOTE] Condemn Mukkanism

It has been tradition that laws of the GA are automatically followed; no nation may even be capable of breaking such laws. However, I pose this question.

Can citizens of said nations break WA law? If true; Then this means that government officials can break laws. If government officials can break laws, then the nation in effect can ignore such laws. If this is true; then it brings the WA to the same fate as the "Real World United Nations" which never gets anything done.

This now makes the WAGA a mockery because laws can be put into place but ignored by governments if the question above is true.

This SC proposal should be illegal, in that... General Assembly Law cannot (meaning "totally impossible by all standards") be violated.

Thank you.

-An OCC/IC speech from the Representative from Jurisdictions

I am going to follow up on what I said, and why we should have this changed.

According to the FAQ:

The World Assembly is the world's governing body. It's your chance to mold the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will be affected by any resolutions that pass. (Unfortunately you can't obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations.) In other words, it's a hot-bed of political intrigue and double-dealing.

According to the resolution above, a nation's government officials can ignore WA law. If citizens of nations (which includes the officials who govern them) can ignore/break the law of the General Assembly. It will make a mockery of the WA as a whole. And turn the WA into the "UNnamed organization" which by the way gets nothing done because nations and the citizens do not follow the law.

According to NS tradition, GA resolutions are impossible to break. If this resolution passes, the WA will become a mockery of its self.

I push for this rule:

Security Council resolutions may not condemn or commend nations for violation of General Assembly resolutions; as General Assembly resolutions are impossible to violate.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

GA resolutions aren't "impossible" to break - it's just that most claims of noncompliance are treated with contempt because they originate from n00bish players who don't understand how this whole "compliance is mandatory" thing works. There are also a lot of IIers who don't pay attention to the WA at all, even if they are members, because the WA is gameplay and has nothing to with RP. But that's beside the point. The SC shouldn't condemn nations for breaking GA laws, not because they're impossible to break, but because enforcing GA laws is not the SC's job. We already have the Compliance Ministry for that.

[JURISDICTIONS]

Which is my point in case. It should be illegal because compliance is already done. If you roleplay it fine. But, the SC resolution will in fact destroy the very foundations of WA law & order.

You and the rest of the General Assembly should be wary of this resolution. Because it will bring about the crumbling of the WA, and the fact that nations will be allowed to ignore laws.

[Ballotonia]

Since the sticky ("Why Did My C&C Get Chucked Out of the Queue?") tells me to post suggestions for the ruleset in this thread, I'm posting here, despite that the last post has been a while.

Suggestion:
- A REPEAL of a C&C should always address the contents of the C&C in question. C&C's are about what is mention in the text of the C&C, and are not to be seen as an evaluation of the entire NS career of the nation or region in question.

Reason: it is currently implemented such that a single nation or region can be the holder of multiple Condemnations and/or Commendations at the same time. They are hence intended to be handed out for specific reasons, and do not form an overall evaluation of that nation or region. And thus, dragging in things not mentioned in the C&C (and thus not part of why the C&C was handed out in the first place) attempts to undermine the concept of how C&C's are implemented and use it as an overall evaluation anyway.

NB: if C&C's were intended as an overall evaluation of a nation or region, they would IMHO not require to have text in them at all since mentioning ALL information about a nation or region would be way too much information anyway. Making a selection of relevant information would be inherently biased. And, of course, it being an overall evaluation would by necessity limit the number of C&C's possible per nation or region to 1.

Ballotonia

[Mousebumples]

And, of course, it being an overall evaluation would by necessity limit the number of C&C's possible per nation or region to 1.

While I do agree with that, in theory, as of yet no nation or region has more than one C&C. To my knowledge, there is not yet a nation or region with both a C& a C (to total 2 badges).

In the event where a given nation or region is awarded 2 or more badges, should one be subject to a repeal attempt, I can better understand your assertions. However, sometimes items that were omitted in the original C&C text should have been noted but were not - perhaps due to bias, etc. To be obligated by rule to avoid talking about such things seems counter-intuitive and perhaps motivated by frustration due to the current repeal that is up for a vote. (Please note that I am not saying that such items were omitted in the original Commend Sedge ... I'm more trying to point out the potential future logical fallacies.)

[Unibot]

In the event where a given nation or region is awarded 2 or more badges, should one be subject to a repeal attempt, I can better understand your assertions. However, sometimes items that were omitted in the original C&C text should have been noted but were not - perhaps due to bias, etc. To be obligated by rule to avoid talking about such things seems counter-intuitive and perhaps motivated by frustration due to the current repeal that is up for a vote. (Please note that I am not saying that such items were omitted in the original Commend Sedge ... I'm more trying to point out the potential future logical fallacies.)

But they could not have been removed out of biasness, if they hadn't happened yet.

[Mousebumples]

But they could not have been removed out of biasness, if they hadn't happened yet.

If there's no rule against presenting a biased case in favor of whatever argument you're trying to make ... What prevents such a proposal from being made?

Also, who is going to judge bias? Moderators cannot be expected to know everything there is to know about each C&C proposal subject.

[Ardchoille]

This is one of those things I didn't think needed to be said: if you're repealing a resolution, your repeal should at least give a nod to what's in the resolution. I'm not talking rules here, I'm talking logical argument.

Since C&Cs generally follow the format, "Commend Fred because (a) he's alive (b) I like him a lot and (c) he's a nice guy", you'd expect a repeal to be based on the assertions that (a) he's dead OR (b) he and the original author have fallen out OR (c) he's a very nasty guy.

I suppose it's reasonable also to repeal a resolution because new information relevant to the original has become available, eg, Fred is in fact a zombie, rendering (a) inexact, (b) moot and (c) improbable.

Mods aren't expected to know if an original C&C's assertions are true, so I don't suppose we're expected to know if a repeal's assertions are true, either. It's not like a General Assembly resolution, where the content of the original is not a matter of truth or falsehood, but of legality.

With C&Cs/repeals, truth is up to the delegates to decide, and in convincing other delegates I can see previously unmentioned old information has some relevance, too -- they said he was a nice guy, but at the time nobody knew (or the author covered up) that he'd kicked a puppy (link in debate thread), monstered an old lady (link in debate thread) and taken candy from a baby (link in debate thread).

It seems to me that all this is just "make sure you argue repeals properly", which is simply common sense, and not needing a rule. I'm open to further argument, but we're trying to avoid making SC proposals rule-heavy.

[Unibot]

But they could not have been removed out of biasness, if they hadn't happened yet.

If there's no rule against presenting a biased case in favor of whatever argument you're trying to make ... What prevents such a proposal from being made?

Also, who is going to judge bias? Moderators cannot be expected to know everything there is to know about each C&C proposal subject.

You misunderstood what I wrote. If someone didn't do something till 2010, and he got commended in 2009, then how can it be a bias that the resolution didn't mention what he did in 2010.. if he hadn't done it yet.

[Ballotonia]

This is one of those things I didn't think needed to be said: if you're repealing a resolution, your repeal should at least give a nod to what's in the resolution. I'm not talking rules here, I'm talking logical argument.

Since C&Cs generally follow the format, "Commend Fred because (a) he's alive (b) I like him a lot and (c) he's a nice guy", you'd expect a repeal to be based on the assertions that (a) he's dead OR (b) he and the original author have fallen out OR (c) he's a very nasty guy.

I suppose it's reasonable also to repeal a resolution because new information relevant to the original has become available, eg, Fred is in fact a zombie, rendering (a) inexact, (b) moot and (c) improbable.

Mods aren't expected to know if an original C&C's assertions are true, so I don't suppose we're expected to know if a repeal's assertions are true, either. It's not like a General Assembly resolution, where the content of the original is not a matter of truth or falsehood, but of legality.

With C&Cs/repeals, truth is up to the delegates to decide, and in convincing other delegates I can see previously unmentioned old information has some relevance, too -- they said he was a nice guy, but at the time nobody knew (or the author covered up) that he'd kicked a puppy (link in debate thread), monstered an old lady (link in debate thread) and taken candy from a baby (link in debate thread).

It seems to me that all this is just "make sure you argue repeals properly", which is simply common sense, and not needing a rule. I'm open to further argument, but we're trying to avoid making SC proposals rule-heavy.

I'm not talking about truth vs fiction, I'm concerned that once the SC passes a repeal which has textually nothing to do with the contents of what was repealed, a precedent is set that C&C's should be seen as an overall evaluation of a nation or region, despite that the nature of its actual implementation in the game being the opposite.

Imagine the following: Commend says "Nation X is Commended for making awesome flags." Then a repeal says "But... nation X is an evil dictatorship!" These two have nothing to do with one another. Both could easily be true, but they're not relevant to one another.

Some of the current C&C's are very much at risk of getting this treatment. Like for instance the Condemnation of DFD. She did a lot of good things too (defender stuff comes to mind), but since the Condemn is about her RPs any repeal based on her non-RP efforts would be merely confusing the issue.

In the GA it is highly unlikely that a resolution about taxes would be repealed by talking about water shortages. Since C&C's are inherently at risk of being mistakenly interpreted as an overall evaluation of the nation or region in question, the likelihood of something like that happening is much greater. As we've seen in the case of Nazi Europe, it sometimes doesn't really matter what a C&C or its repeal says, many many players are already seeing it as an overall evaluation. But that's not how it's actually implemented in the game.

In conclusion, I'm asking for these two to be brought in line. Either it should be enforced that repeals remain relevant to what is being repealed, or the C&C system should actually be rewritten to be an overall evaluation (which means limiting each nation or region to only be able to receive ONE C&C total).

Ballotonia

[Ardchoille]

I just added this to the rules sticky. It's not set in stone, but putting it in the advice section, rather than the rules section, is. I don't want to limit ways for the WA to change its mind, so I'm trying to do what Max said: leave most of the decision-making up to the delegates, via their approvals.

Repeals: A REPEAL of a C&C should address the contents of the C&C in question. However, a repeal that consists of nothing but a negative of the original -- eg, Commend X because he is a good guy, Repeal Commend X because he is NOT a good guy -- may be deleted on the grounds that the SC already discussed this in the original debate. (cf "I don't like this" being forbidden in GA Repeal arguments.)

A Commendation or Condemnation is an expression of opinion by the WA. Repealing it is saying that the WA has changed its mind. You should therefore give reasons for the change of mind. These may include matters that have come to light or changed since the original resolution. See further discussion here.

The link is to Ballotonia's first post on this topic, above. Apologies in advance for the following wall of text, it's based on a number of points raised in recent debates.

Ballotonia, I get your point about textual relevance. But a C&C repeal isn't the same as a GA resolution repeal. GA resolutions are laws for nations. You don't repeal one law by discussing another law. C&Cs, though, are opinions about nations. A repeal is saying, "The WA has changed its opinion." So the repeal has to explain why this has happened. But the "why" can be a reason that touches on something other than the topics given in the original. It can even be another opinion.

To give you an example: suppose the WA had been able to commend JK Rowling for her Harry Potter books, and one of the reasons had been that they were easily read even by seven-year-olds. Now suppose a nation had subsequently been told by its religious advisers that the books' favourable treatment of witches encouraged Satanism. The Repeal would refer to the original -- "the books are easily read by seven-year-olds" -- and add subsequent argument -- "which makes them dangerous (ie, undeserving of a commendation), because they present innocent children with a favourable view of witchcraft, which is a Tool of the Devil."

That is, the books themselves -- the facts in the commendation -- haven't changed at all, but the opinion of them has changed because of something not mentioned in the original. So it needn't be an "overall evaluation of a nation's history", but it could be additional parts of, or a new slant on, a nation's history.

So what I'm saying is that, provided the wording of the repeal is legal, whether it's relevant should be largely up to the delegates to judge by giving or withholding approvals.

Which brings us to Sedgistan's argument that "repeal Commend Antarctic Oasis" sounded like a Condemnation. I think this will be true in varying degrees for all Repeal Commends, and all Repeal Condemns will sound a bit like a Commendation. Partly that's because, if you say, " We no longer commend you", it does sound pretty negative -- we're disappointed in you, you've let us down, your reputation is false, you're a whited sepulchre. Conversely, if you say, "We no longer condemn you", it's like, "Hey, you've improved, you're much better."

But a second reason is that the author might also want to condemn the nation concerned for the very points listed in the original. They can't while the commendation is in place -- you can't commend and condemn for the same set of facts. So first they have to convince the WA that the facts are negative enough to undermine the commendation; they have to get it repealed.

Then, if they want to condemn, the WA has to be convinced that the facts are serious enough to warrant a permanent Badge of Shame. Delegates might feel that removing the Commendation -- via the Repeal -- was enough, and the Condemnation will fail to make quorum. Or they might feel that the facts brought out in the repeal are so serious that more condign punishment is in order, and support a Condemnation on the same set of facts.

Since it's the same delegates who are going to have to sit through a Repeal debate and a Condemnation debate on the same subject, I'm guessing it's a situation that's not likely to arise often, but the point is, it should remain open as a possibility.

(Incidentally, if anyone did manage to write a C&C that did provide an "overall evaluation" of a nation's history I think it would be pretty much a blocker to any further badges, because you couldn't have two based on the same set of facts. To get a second badge, you'd have to wait till the nation did something new that hadn't been mentioned in the first one.)

[Mousebumples]

Ard, just to clarify (based on some discussions I've had elsewhere, largely in the Repeal Commend AO debate, I believe) -

Can new events that happened after the original resolution's passage be included in a repeal? As per the above rule statement, they should (somehow) tie into the original, of course. However, if a nation was commended for being a great feeder delegate and guide for new nations (for example) and then proceeded to start acting like Durk and banning new nations left and right ... Would that be legal to include in a repeal argument? It's different (good actions and bad actions) but both are tied into their being a feeder delegate in this instance. Certainly, the new details could also be used to create a condemnation, but I can see that being a decent argument for why a commendation should be repealed.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Unibot]

Ard, just to clarify (based on some discussions I've had elsewhere, largely in the Repeal Commend AO debate, I believe) -

Can new events that happened after the original resolution's passage be included in a repeal? As per the above rule statement, they should (somehow) tie into the original, of course. However, if a nation was commended for being a great feeder delegate and guide for new nations (for example) and then proceeded to start acting like Durk and banning new nations left and right ... Would that be legal to include in a repeal argument? It's different (good actions and bad actions) but both are tied into their being a feeder delegate in this instance. Certainly, the new details could also be used to create a condemnation, but I can see that being a decent argument for why a commendation should be repealed.

Thanks for the clarification.

Although I will be opposing any repeal that focuses on future events of a commended nominee, out of principle. I don't think it should be the concern of moderators to determine in what chronological order of events happen in -- that would require our mods to be gameplay historians.

[Ardchoille]

I think if a new event changes or could change the opinion expressed in the old resolution, it's fair (and legal) to mention it in the repeal. Provided the link is made with the old, of course.

With something new, it's really more a tactical decision by the author. A repeal would merely rob the nominee of a Commendation (or free them from a Condemnation). A new C&C would give them two badges from different times, so that everybody could see that they were once among the ranks of Virtue but later turned to the Dark Side (or vice versa).

So the author would have to decide whether the new event (attitude/opinion/whatever) is outstanding enough to persuade the WA to deliver a new badge, or whether it's not really all that world-shattering, but is just enough to get a Repeal through and thus sink the nominee back into the ranks of us ordinary, unremarkable folk.

The delegates are the ones who are in the business of judging on the basis of truth, motive or chronology.

[Unibot]

I have a question, generally speaking we tolerate swearing on the forums so long as it not flame-baiting, it is suppose to just go without saying that swearing is not allowed in a WA proposal?

[Ardchoille]

Yes, it is supposed to go without saying. You're supposed to recognise that the WA, being an official international body, conducts its official affairs with some degree of dignity -- whatever the delegates may choose to do. (And the "tolerate swearing" thing isn't about individual words as much as it is about intent: if your intention is to flame, even mild terms could be actionable.)

[Unibot]

Yes, it is supposed to go without saying. You're supposed to recognise that the WA, being an official international body, conducts its official affairs with some degree of dignity -- whatever the delegates may choose to do. (And the "tolerate swearing" thing isn't about individual words as much as it is about intent: if your intention is to flame, even mild terms could be actionable.)

Thought so. Just mild curiosity I suppose. Although I do question if one culture should have a monopoly over what is considered dignified.. .

[Darenjo]

Just by the way, don't condemn the World Assembly itself. Doing so will result in getting insulted and laughed at by both WA and non-WA nations alike.

[A mean old man]

I have a question, generally speaking we tolerate swearing on the forums so long as it not flame-baiting, it is suppose to just go without saying that swearing is not allowed in a WA proposal?

"Condemn shitty proposal writing"

[Unibot]

I have a question, generally speaking we tolerate swearing on the forums so long as it not flame-baiting, it is suppose to just go without saying that swearing is not allowed in a WA proposal?

"Condemn shitty proposal writing"

Oh yeah.. I remember that debate now. For people who follow the creation of SC conventions that debate was an important one because it was pushing the boundaries of what was acceptable *winks to Sedge*.

[Sedgistan]

There are four rules for Security Council proposals:

• 1. You cannot commend or condemn a moderator for moderating (or an admin for administrating). If you want to commend any of the mods for their actions as a moderator, you can start a thread in Moderation and put up with all the jokes. If you think you've got reason to condemn any of the mods for their actions as a moderator, submit a Getting Help Request.
  
  
• 2. Use your common sense:
  
  • (a) Don't copy someone else's proposal. That's plagiarism, and will get your nation expelled from the WA.
  • (b) Don't duplicate. Nations that have already been Commended/Condemned for a certain set of actions can't be Commended or Condemned again for that set of actions. Equally, a region cannot be liberated more than once.
  • (c) Don't use proposals to raise issues that should be dealt with elsewhere. Complaints about rules violations should be made in Moderation or via Getting Help Requests, and game mechanics suggestions should be made in Technical.
  • (d) Repeals should address the contents of the resolution they're repealing, and not by just stating the reverse of the arguments given in the resolution.
  
  
• 3. Your proposal must contain an operative clause stating what the proposal actual does. Commendations/Condemnation can only commend/condemn the nominee, Liberations can only liberate the targeted region, and Repeals can only repeal the targeted resolution. For example, your proposal cannot impose fine, sanctions or a boycott on a condemned nation.
  
  
• 4. Your proposal must be able to be read as being submitted by a Nation, and as targeting a Nation or Region, and therefore must use nation-simulation language (“SC IC”).
  
  For example, you proposal cannot:
  
  • (a) Refer directly to a player, rather than to the NationStates nation itself.
  • (b) Refer to the game, or events or actions in it, as a game or part of a game.
  • (c) Read as if you're speaking for you-the-player (eg, "I think", "I feel", "I believe". Try "my nation feels", "my government believes", etc.)
  • (d) Reference the real world, in the sense of the place that is not the NationStates community.
  • (e) Contain reference to ideologies without explaining how they apply to NationStates in terms of actions, policies or attributes of nations/regions.

---

The primary responsibility for determining the standards of Security Council resolutions lies with delegates. Unless a proposal violates one of the above rules, it is unlikely to be deleted. If you don't like misspelled proposals, or proposals condemning raiders just because they're raiders, or proposals commending your region's bitterest enemies, or the way a group of nations has got together to push a particular line, it's up to you to do something about it. And the "something" is not "call the mods".

So, as promised, we've got around to re-writing the rules thread. All the rules have been re-written, and Rule 2 has been significantly modified to include some 'rules' that aren't in the current rules thread, but were nonetheless being applied. The advice section in the current rules thread won't be included, and instead will be moved over to the Compendium of Mod Rulings & General Advice within the SC.

Feedback is welcome before this is made official.

[Mahaj WA Seat]

was rule 4 (e) just added? Because I haven't seen it before.
And also, explaining rule 3, you might want to give an example, like

COMMENDS Mahaj for sheer awesomeness.

or something like that.

other than that, it seems fine!

[Sedgistan]

was rule 4 (e) just added? Because I haven't seen it before.

Yep, that was added in to clarify the rulings about ideologies.

And also, explaining rule 3, you might want to give an example, like

COMMENDS Mahaj for sheer awesomeness.

or something like that.

I'm not sure that's necessary - it seems to be something that would fit better in the SC Guide, rather than the rules thread.

other than that, it seems fine!

Thanks!

[Unibot]

Technically the "liberations can only remove delegate-imposed passwords".. this distinction might be important to include for Rule III. Tit-for-Tat rules should be included to II.

Oh and liked this bit from the original, "Repeals: A REPEAL of a C&C should address the contents of the C&C in question. However, a repeal that consists of nothing but a negative of the original -- eg, Repeal Commend X because he is NOT a good guy -- may be deleted on the grounds that the SC discussed this in the original debate." --> perhaps that could be added to II, although it isn't always "commonsense".

Rule III should be restructured as the metagaming rule.

• 3. Your proposal cannot try to accomplish more than the proposal actually can do.
  • Your proposal must contain an operative clause stating what the proposal actual does. Commendations/Condemnation can only commend/condemn the nominee, Liberations can only liberate the targeted region, and Repeals can only repeal the targeted resolution. For example, your proposal cannot impose fine, sanctions or a boycott on a condemned nation.
  • The Security Council and the World Assembly are the only institutions that a Security Council resolution can be sponsored and executed by. Therefore, the masterheads of a resolution should either be a variation of "the Security Council" of "the World Assembly" . Furthermore, other institutions, such as the World Assembly Intelligence Committee, Compliance Commission, General Assembly or a defender/crasher army cannot be tasked with or explicitly encouraged to do perform any duties on behalf of the Security Council.

Finally, I like the ..

.. but I'd prefer, "3.1", "3.2","3.3" .. because it would be slick to be able to be precise and accurate in our drafting.. "your resolution violates Article 2.2 of the SC-ruleset".

EDIT: Tit for Tit rules. Heh.
EDIT1: To not do something as performing a duty on behalf of the Security Council is still following an encouragement, its just an encouragement to not do something.