[Draft] Ruleset Re-Writing

[Bormiar]

This is intended to clarify current rules, not change them

The current rules simply do not explain or justify all of rulings that have been made over the last decade, which have been compiled in the rules compendium. The rules compendium is often long, boring, and self-contradictory at times, so expanding and/or re-phrasing ruleset in order to accommodate these would be extremely easier.

Bolded rules marked as numbers are the rules, anything under them (e.g. 1(c) or 9(b)) is simply clarifying any ambiguity or giving special notice to certain aspects of the rule in a way that should be kept in the rules (instead of in a dusty old compendium).

1. Do not break site rules
   
   • 1(a) Do not plagiarize particularly. This will get you ejected from the World Assembly.
   • 1(b) While accusations are a key attribute of many proposals, claiming that a player or group of players have committed illegal actions in real life may fall foul of the harassment rule in the One Stop Rules Shop.
   • 1(c) Proposals which break rules excessively will be discarded, rather than marked illegal.
2. Do not use the Security Council as an alternative to moderation.
   
   • 2(a) Proposals may not imply or declare a nation, region, or player to have broken site rules without the nation, region, or player having been verifiably reprimanded by the moderators, such as through the boneyard or moderation statements.
   • 2(b) Commendations, condemnations, and liberations cannot punish or reward a region or nation for any site rules broken.
3. Proposals may not mandate action from site staff (including moderators, issues editors, administrators, tech modlings, roleplay mentors, and General Secretariat).
   
   
4. It is illegal to commend or condemn a nation for any work created using back-end access or access not given to most players, or condemn or commend a member of site staff for actions taken as part of their role.
   • 4(a) General Secretariat (GenSec) may not be commended or condemned for their decisions of the legality of General Assembly proposals.
   • 4(b) Issues Editors may be commended or condemned for issues written or co-authored while they were not an Issues Editor, but may not be condemned or commended for issues edited, written, or co-authored during their time as an Issues Editor.
   • 4(c) Roleplay Mentors may be commended or condemned for their roleplay, but not for mentoring other roleplayers.
   • 4(d) Administrators and Tech Modlings may not be commended or condemned for work in developing the NationStates site, but can be commended or condemned for other supplementary tools, such as those which display / record information about NationStates, or those which improve the site without changing the site’s code (such as browser extensions).
5. Proposals must contain a unique and relevant argument.
   • 5(a) Proposals must have reasoning for why the Security Council is enacting the resolution, typically through pre-ambulatory clauses.
   • 5(b) Repeals must provide information not previously stated in the resolution it repeals.
   • 5(c) Proposals may not condemn or commend a nation or region for specific actions it has already been commended or condemned for.
6. Proposals must contain an operative clause that clearly states what the proposal does. Appropriate operative clauses are:
   
   • commending a nation or region;
   • condemning a nation or region;
   • liberating a region;
   • or repealing a prior, unrepealed commendation, condemnation, or liberation.
   
   
7. Repeals may not repeal because the resolution is illegal under current rules.
   
   
8. Proposals must be written from the perspective of the World Assembly, not of the author, an organization, or any region. Blatantly or covertly (such as through acrostics) advertising a nation, an organization, or a region in a proposal is prohibited.
   
   
9. Proposals may not reference, imply, or state the existence of a real world outside of NationStates, or a fictional world that is not NationStates.
   • 9(a) Proposals therefore may not mention a player behind a nation, and thus proposals cannot refer to nations with “he” or “she”.
   • 9(b) Proposals may not directly or indirectly refer to NationStates as a game.

---

Each Rules' Justification and Explanation

I strongly suggest bringing up the current rules for reference while reading this.

Rule 1 - Rule 1 is obvious, you cannot break site rules. 1(a) addresses plagiarism, which is in the current ruleset. 1(b) is a bit odd, but I noticed that outright banning mentioning illegal actions is impossible as laws vary country to country. I think Souls does a good job of explaining why this doesn't work.

For that matter, you're apt to confuse newcomers with the second part - language such as "ethnic cleansing," "hate speech," and even "promoting fascism" represent "real life illegal actions" (in some cases country-dependant), and are commonplace in the world of a political sim. And in some cases, like fascist regalia, what the subject is doing *may actually be illegal in their home country*. Again, I get the intention of all this, but I'm not sure at present it's constructive to actually helping newcomers understand the SC.

Instead, I've opted to just mention the harassment rule in the OSRS, which states:

*Accusations of misconduct that may bring real world repercussions outside of NationStates do not belong in public spaces on NationStates and will be punished as harassment. Players may post, in general terms, about factual repercussions taken in response (I.e. removal from a region or regional position), but may not go into details or link to material that does.

Proposals may, for example, condemn Fascistlandia for promoting Fascism, but cannot accuse Testlandia of harassing another player.

1(c) simply makes it explicitly clear what happens to the proposals which do not even merit a place on the proposals list - those which are illegal by moderator rules.

Rule 2 - The Security Council shouldn't be used to punish players for OOC actions or rule-breaking. For example, "Hereby condemns Testlandia for spamming the Rejected Realms' RMB" should be illegal. 2(a) forces authors to confirm whether or not a nation may have done what the proposal says they did before writing it, so as to stop it from being OOC libel. Things like Predator, therefore, would be legal. I'm a bit unsure on this rule and how to phrase it, so if a moderator could provide insight, that would be great. 2(b) just stops the proposal from giving a nation or region a badge for breaking rules, but does not stop proposals from revoking a badge for breaking a site rule like in the case of Predator.

Rule 3 - just like rule 2(c) of our current ruleset, you can't force site staff to do things. It does, however, continue to allow for resolutions to ask for or request game mechanic changes. As I've interpreted that, an example of what you could do is commend Nationtopia for suggesting a certain feature.

Rule 4 - This is just like Rule 1, but it clarifies any confusion caused by - for example - Northrop Grumman, creator of the dark theme. As Sedge explains here, commending (or condemning) a nation for something it did without any special permissions is fine, but commending or condemning a nation for a special thing tasked by the site (such as creating a theme) is not legal. While it may initially seem redundant to also say that you can't commend or condemn site staff for actions taken as part of their role, that includes mentors (who do not have any special power).

4(a) and 4(b) sort of contradict each other, as if IEs can't be commended or condemned for issues they wrote while they were /are IEs, it could make sense to not allow GenSec to be commended or condemned for GA resolutions written while they are GenSec, but previous rulings don't seem to agree, and likely because IEs are tasked with maintaining and editing issues, rather than just checking if they meet a standard.

4(c) addresses that mentors can be commended or condemned for their roleplay, as their job is solely to mentor new nations.

4(d) addresses things like NS++, created by an admin. Any supplementary tools (like a browser extension, discord bot, etc) created by the any member of the site staff but not an official part of the site shouldn't be considered part of their role.

Rule 5 - I took this straight from the current rules, as I like it. I almost removed "and relevant", as other rules in this proposal expand upon our current rule 2(c), but then I realized that that would allow for someone to say "Hereby condemns Testlandia for The Black Hawk's raiding", so I've left it in.

5(a) is actually a requirement by current standards, as our current rule 2 states that you need an argument (it doesn't address this later on, so it's unclear whether this is intended). It could be re-written to say "All arguments must be unique and relevant", but proposals without arguments are basically spam. This rule also encourages the usage of pre-ambulatory clauses, but, because there doesn't seem to be any ruling that mandates it (and because of the existence of things like Commend Haiku), it only encourages it. It seems that our current style of writing is just tradition.

5(b) is just like 2(d) in the current rules, but because I find it extremely ambiguous, I said that repeals need new info, which shares a motivation as 2(d): to keep the SC from repeating or contradicting itself.

5(c) is just like our current 2(b).

Rule 6 - Equivalent of our current rule 3

Rule 7 - I took that from this.

Rule 8 - This is derivative of our current 4(d), but also clarifies that advertising yourself, your organization, your region, your dog, your grandma, etc is illegal, including through usage of acrostics.

Rule 9 - Based on the current rule 4, I should be able to say "Acknowledging Batman's superior Quidditch skills, exhibited by his defeat of Daffy Duck at the previous World Cup", as that does not reference the real world - it simply references other fictional worlds. Banning those references not only fixes that problem but also clarifies why claiming delusions "is not a viable way of dodging Rule 4", as that could be considered the person or nation's own fictitious world.

That's the only substantial change I made to rule 9.

---

I was a little scared to post this, as it's a very rough draft, but I can't work in a vacuum for something which absolutely requires public drafting. Please let me know what you think.

[Morover]

I just took a quick look at this, so forgive me if what I say here is unnecessary. Just some suggestions below.

2. The Security Council cannot be used as an alternative to moderation.

Perhaps reword this as "Do not use the Security Council as an alternative to moderation."

4(a) General Secretariat (GenSec) may be commended or condemned for resolutions written during, before, or after any time spent in their role.

While I agree that this should be in the ruleset somewhere, perhaps end it with ", but may not be commended or condemned for decisions of the legality of General Assembly proposals."

5(b) Repeals must provide information not previously stated in the resolution it repeals.

The wording of this sounds odd to me, and could be misinterpreted. Under my current (and, to be fair, somewhat limited) understanding of the SC rules, repeals are allowed to simply explain why the commended/condemned/liberated action is not worthy of a commendation/condemnation/liberation, without needing to bring entirely new information to the table. In fact, by my reading of the current 2(d), one can repeal any SC resolution for any reason - so long as the repealer does not say the opposite of whatever the initial resolution said.

6. Proposals must contain an operative clause which clearly states what the proposal does. The proposal can only commend, condemn, OR liberate.

or repeal. Also, I'd clarify that each proposal can only commend/condemn/liberate one nation or region.

-

Honestly, I'd agree that the SC needs some more accurate rules - though that opinion comes from someone who doesn't hang around the SC too much.

Best of luck.

[Bormiar]

I just took a quick look at this, so forgive me if what I say here is unnecessary. Just some suggestions below.

2. The Security Council cannot be used as an alternative to moderation.

Perhaps reword this as "Do not use the Security Council as an alternative to moderation."

Gotcha. Done.

4(a) General Secretariat (GenSec) may be commended or condemned for resolutions written during, before, or after any time spent in their role.

While I agree that this should be in the ruleset somewhere, perhaps end it with ", but may not be commended or condemned for decisions of the legality of General Assembly proposals."

I'll do this as it's important to be explicit.

5(b) Repeals must provide information not previously stated in the resolution it repeals.

The wording of this sounds odd to me, and could be misinterpreted. Under my current (and, to be fair, somewhat limited) understanding of the SC rules, repeals are allowed to simply explain why the commended/condemned/liberated action is not worthy of a commendation/condemnation/liberation, without needing to bring entirely new information to the table. In fact, by my reading of the current 2(d), one can repeal any SC resolution for any reason - so long as the repealer does not say the opposite of whatever the initial resolution said.

Honestly, I find this clause extremely difficult as it states that you need a new argument and can't just state the opposite of the resolution. For example, "Testlandia does not have a cool flag and therefore should not be commended for having a cool flag" would be illegal because it is self-contradictory to the SC, but "It has come to the Security Council's attention that Testlandia has since changed its flag" would be legal, as it does not simply state the opposite. That example involves bringing in new information, as I believe all examples would, as only re-using information used to enact a certain resolution in order to repeal that resolution is self-contradictory, almost by definition.

6. Proposals must contain an operative clause which clearly states what the proposal does. The proposal can only commend, condemn, OR liberate.

or repeal. Also, I'd clarify that each proposal can only commend/condemn/liberate one nation or region.

Alright. This should work:

Proposals must contain an operative clause that clearly states what the proposal does. The proposal can only commend, condemn, liberate, OR repeal the individual region, nation, or resolution nominated.

Honestly, I'd agree that the SC needs some more accurate rules - though that opinion comes from someone who doesn't hang around the SC too much.

Best of luck.

Thanks!

[Lesser Norp]

Alright. This should work:

Proposals must contain an operative clause that clearly states what the proposal does. The proposal can only commend, condemn, liberate, OR repeal the individual region, nation, or resolution nominated.

This makes it sound as if the WA has the authority to repeal regions and commend resolutions. (Which I'm guessing you didn't intend to be part of the updated rules )

[Bormiar]

Alright. This should work:

This makes it sound as if the WA has the authority to repeal regions and commend resolutions. (Which I'm guessing you didn't intend to be part of the updated rules )

Lol hmmm...

Proposals must contain an operative clause that clearly states what the proposal does. A proposal can either repeal the resolution nominated, commend or condemn the individual nation or region nominated, OR liberate the nominated region.

I thought of doing this, but that's a whole lot of "or"s.

[Morover]

This makes it sound as if the WA has the authority to repeal regions and commend resolutions. (Which I'm guessing you didn't intend to be part of the updated rules )

Lol hmmm...

Proposals must contain an operative clause that clearly states what the proposal does. A proposal can either repeal the resolution nominated, commend or condemn the individual nation or region nominated, OR liberate the nominated region.

I thought of doing this, but that's a whole lot of "or"s.

You may perhaps consider doing it as a list of subclauses, such as:

Proposals must contain an operative clause that clearly states what the proposal does. Appropriate operative clauses include:

1. commending a nation or region;
2. condemning a nation or region;
3. liberating a region;
4. or repealing a prior, unrepealed commendation, condemnation, or liberation.

[Bormiar]

Lol hmmm...



I thought of doing this, but that's a whole lot of "or"s.

You may perhaps consider doing it as a list of subclauses, such as:

Proposals must contain an operative clause that clearly states what the proposal does. Appropriate operative clauses include:

1. commending a nation or region;
2. condemning a nation or region;
3. liberating a region;
4. or repealing a prior, unrepealed commendation, condemnation, or liberation.

That looks perfect, thanks!

[Maowi]

As a tentative suggestion, you may want to replace "include" with something more restrictive like simply "are" so it doesn't look like there are other possible operative clauses?

Edit: as in, in that section just being discussed now

[Bormiar]

As a tentative suggestion, you may want to replace "include" with something more restrictive like simply "are" so it doesn't look like there are other possible operative clauses?

Edit: as in, in that section just being discussed now

Good catch. Thanks.

[Morover]

You copy-pasted my thing (which is fine, I couldn't care) but I didn't include the list code for the entire thing with it, so you may want to go back and add that [*] to make the numbering appropriate.

[Bormiar]

You copy-pasted my thing (which is fine, I couldn't care) but I didn't include the list code for the entire thing with it, so you may want to go back and add that [*] to make the numbering appropriate.

Thanks. For formatting things please ping me on discord at twerty#7043 or tg me to avoid clogging the thread.

[Makdon]

9 Proposals may not reference, imply, or state the existence of a real world outside of NationStates, or a fictional world that is not NationStates.

• 9(a) Proposals therefore may not mention a player behind a nation, and thus proposals cannot refer to nations with “he” or “she”.
• 9(b) Proposals may not refer to NationStates as a game.

I'm not experienced with the sc, but 9b seems like a less useful version of 4c, since 4c also addresses actions within the game. A bit redundant perhaps, but I feel like it's better nonetheless. I don't think the wording of 4c is ideal though, as it really doesn't make clear enough that breaking the 4th wall is not allowed. For example, if I were to write a proposal about a defender and somehow mentioned updates, even though this doesn't call NS a game or call updates a part of a game, it still breaks the 4th wall. Obviously, one could argue that you're referencing the game, even if not explicitly, and the whole situation would be extremely dependent on wording. In my opinion, it might be good to say something along the lines of "Proposals may not refer to NationStates as a game, as any thing within it as part of a game, nor may they make any other statements that could indirectly reference it as game"

[Bormiar]

I'm not experienced with the sc, but 9b seems like a less useful version of 4c, since 4c also addresses actions within the game. A bit redundant perhaps, but I feel like it's better nonetheless. I don't think the wording of 4c is ideal though, as it really doesn't make clear enough that breaking the 4th wall is not allowed. For example, if I were to write a proposal about a defender and somehow mentioned updates, even though this doesn't call NS a game or call updates a part of a game, it still breaks the 4th wall. Obviously, one could argue that you're referencing the game, even if not explicitly, and the whole situation would be extremely dependent on wording. In my opinion, it might be good to say something along the lines of "Proposals may not refer to NationStates as a game, as any thing within it as part of a game, nor may they make any other statements that could indirectly reference it as game"

The only difference I can find between "Don't refer to NS as a game" and "Don't refer to actions within NS as part of a game" is that, for example, "Noting that Testlandia's leader laughed sadistically as he made the natives' ejections into a game, even choosing to telegram natives demanding that they pick numbers 1-10 before joyously removing them if they failed to guess properly" might be illegal, as it refers to Testlandia's actions as a game (albeit in Lord Violet's unforgiving eyes!). I don't think most mods would mark that clause illegal, so I believe the only good "Don't refer to actions within NS as part of a game" could do is already covered in the current rule 9b. I'd love to hear more opinions, concerns, or arguments on this topic though.

I understood what you meant in the rest of it in probably the second read of it. That's actually a rather major flaw in 4(c), as it should probably say:

9(b) Proposals may not directly or indirectly refer to NationStates as a game.

"Indirectly" in this scenario would include a proposal's terminology. Thus, with the example you used, "update", depending on the context, might mean "server update" and thus "game". Note that that example's interpretation as such by this rule emendation does not conflict with the current standard that game-provided terms are legal, as the game refers to updates as "World Assembly Census Updates".

[Kuriko]

I've drafted my own alternative rule-set, although it's a little bulkier. No offense intended, but I don't really like the outline of this rule set nor do I like the numbering changes.

---

• 1. You cannot commend or condemn members of the site staff (Moderators, Administrators, Issues Editors, Roleplay Mentors etc.) for actions taken as part of their role. However, in certain instances it is allowable to use content within a condemnation or commendation that happened during or before their tenure on site staff.
  This means that:
  
  • (a) Issues Editors may be commended or condemned for Issues written, submitted and published prior to their appointments as Issues Editors but they may not be commended or condemned for any issues written, submitted and published after their appointment to Issues Editor.
  • (b) Role Play Mentors may be commended or condemned for actions committed during role playing, but they may not be commended or condemned for mentoring other role players.
  • (c) General Assembly Secretaries may be commended or condemned for General Assembly resolutions passed before and after their appointment to the office, but they may not be commended or condemned for legality rulings during their tenure.
  • (d) Site Administrators and Technical Administrators may be commended or condemned for tools created and distributed which are not official additions to the NationStates site, but they may not be commended or condemned for official codified additions to the site.
  • (e) Any addition to the site appearance aside from flags shall be considered a violation under this rule, meaning no nation may be commended or condemned for any action taken to change the appearance of NationStates on a technical level.
• 2. Proposals must contain a unique and relevant argument.
  That means:
  
  • (a) Don't plagiarize. If it can be proven that you've simply copy and pasted somebody else's Proposal and submitted it as your own, it'll be deleted, and you may be ejected from the WA as well. This rule applies to any resolution drafts or previously submitted proposals.
  • (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, Liberations cannot duplicate any existing ones for that region. Nations/regions can be commended/condemned more than once - so long as the proposals are based on different sets of actions. A region can also accrue multiple Liberations, so long as they do not duplicate each other.
  • (c) Don't use proposals to raise issues that should be dealt with elsewhere, such as rules violations and technical suggestions. Rules violations should be handled via a Getting Help Request or upon the Moderation Forum, and Technical suggestions should be handled upon the Technical Forum. Resolutions may only refer to rules violations if referencing having multiple WA nations by a single player, or if as a compliment to moderator action so long as it is Rule 4 compliant.
  • (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. 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. 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.
  • (e) Your proposal must clearly state that the name of the nominee within the proposal, if it is a shortened version of the name or a different name entirely, is an alternate name to the intended nominee.
  • (f) Your proposal must not contain an advertisement for any nation or region, nor can it contain an acrostic. It containing such things could lead to its deletion from the floor.
• 3. Your proposal must contain an operative clause stating what the proposal actually does, e.g. commends, condemns, liberates, or repeals.
  This means:
  
  • (a) Operative clauses must be clear that they're targeting the nominee, rather than the actions cited in the pre-ambulatory clauses. An example operative clause is "Hereby Condemns Exampletonia".
  • (b) You must clearly state the name of the nominee in the operative clause, not a nickname, and misspelling the name is liable to get your proposal removed.
  • (c) The action that a resolution does (condemning, commending, liberating or repealing) does not have to be attributed to any body - however, if it is, it must be attributed to an appropriate authority - ie. the World Assembly or The Security Council (the former is preferred). A proposal cannot have "Sedgistan Hereby Condemns Unibot" as its operative clause.
  • (d) Liberation resolutions cannot call for the removal of founder-imposed passwords. Founder-imposed passwords are unaffected by Security Council liberations.
• 4. Your proposal must read as representing the opinion of the World Assembly, and as targeting a Nation or Region.
  This means:
  
  • (a) The proposal must be read as coming from the WA, rather than being addressed to it. An appropriate way to begin a proposal is by saying "The World Assembly/Security Council,", whereas an inappropriate way to begin a proposal is by saying "To the World Assembly/Security Council,".
  • (b) You cannot reference the "real world" outside of NationStates. This means any terms or any information that is not a direct in-game reference, and that references something outside of NationStates, are considered illegal. Terms considered legal or illegal within a proposal include, but are not limited to:
    

    Legal Terms:
    NationStates or NationStates community (see here and here), Multiverse (see here, Who (when referring to nations, see here), Feeder or Sinker (as in "Feeder Region" or "Sinker Region", see here, Any term included within NationStates the game - eg. passwords, World Factbook Entries, founders, eject, 'black helicopters transporting nations between regions' (see here, here, here, here, and here), Forums - legal unless it "plainly refers to the electronic entity" (see here and here), Reference to paid aspects of the site is legal (see here), but must be worded carefully. There is no ruling yet on specific terms such as "postmaster general" or "stamps", Cards - legal - but only if not used in a manner consistent with a real life card collection, using other terms maybe more viable in practice (see here).
    Illegal Terms:
    Personal pronouns - illegal when referring to the nation (see here, here, and here), Roleplayer or Gameplayer (see here and here), Thread (as in a forum topic - illegal - simply describe what is done within the thread (see here) nor can you link to threads either), Post (as in 'post' on the forums or an RMB see here)

    Using 'defining' clauses to include any of these terms is also illegal. Additionally, proper nouns explicitly referencing game mechanics illegal under Rule 4 are not allowed (see here). Some terms normally considered Real World references can be worked into proposals, so long as it's clearly demonstrated what the terms mean within NationStates (see here and here). However, claiming 'delusions' on account of an entire nation, or an individual within it, is not a valid way of inserting Real World references into a proposal (see here and here).
  • (c) You must refer to nations as nations, not as the player behind them. This includes the use of pronouns such as "he" or "she" as opposed to "they". The explanation below Rule 4 says that proposals should refer to NS actions rather than characteristics of players (bad spelling, rudeness). What is important is that a resolution cannot refer directly to the player, but can instead indirectly refer to it. Workarounds exist for describing personal attributes such as bad spelling (see here).
  • (d) You cannot refer to the game, or events or actions in it, as part of a game.
  • (e) Your proposal must be written from the perspective of the World Assembly.

---

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".

Rulings not included in the Ruleset & other Modly advice

Legal Term Rubric

1. Is the term something that could be applied to real-world nations. If yes, then fine. If no, see #2.
2. Is the term something that could be applied to the NationStates world? If yes, see point 3, if no, then what on earth are you writing about?
3. Is the term referring to NationStates as a game, or to the people behind the nations? If yes, it's not acceptable. If no, it's fine.

---

Code: Select all

[list] [*][b]1. You cannot commend or condemn members of the site staff (Moderators, Administrators, Issues Editors, Roleplay Mentors etc.) for actions taken as part of their role. However, in certain instances it is allowable to use content within a condemnation or commendation that happened during or before their tenure on site staff.[/b]
This means that:
[list][*](a) Issues Editors may be commended or condemned for Issues written, submitted and published prior to their appointments as Issues Editors but they may not be commended or condemned for any issues written, submitted and published after their appointment to Issues Editor.
[*](b) Role Play Mentors may be commended or condemned for actions committed during role playing, but they may not be commended or condemned for mentoring other role players.
[*](c) General Assembly Secretaries may be commended or condemned for General Assembly resolutions passed before and after their appointment to the office, but they may not be commended or condemned for legality rulings during their tenure.
[*](d) Site Administrators and Technical Administrators may be commended or condemned for tools created and distributed which are not official additions to the NationStates site, but they may not be commended or condemned for official codified additions to the site.
[*](e) Any addition to the site appearance aside from flags shall be considered a violation under this rule, meaning no nation may be commended or condemned for any action taken to change the appearance of NationStates on a technical level.[/list]
[*][b]2. Proposals must contain a unique and relevant argument.[/b]
That means:
[list][*](a) Don't plagiarize. If it can be proven that you've simply copy and pasted somebody else's Proposal and submitted it as your own, it'll be deleted, and you may be ejected from the WA as well. This rule applies to any resolution drafts or previously submitted proposals.
[*](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, Liberations cannot duplicate any existing ones for that region. Nations/regions can be commended/condemned more than once - so long as the proposals are based on different sets of actions. A region can also accrue multiple Liberations, so long as they do not duplicate each other.
[*](c) Don't use proposals to raise issues that should be dealt with elsewhere, such as rules violations and technical suggestions. Rules violations should be handled via a [url=https://www.nationstates.net/page=help]Getting Help Request[/url] or upon the [url=https://forum.nationstates.net/viewforum.php?f=16]Moderation Forum[/url], and Technical suggestions should be handled upon the [url=https://forum.nationstates.net/viewforum.php?f=15]Technical Forum[/url]. Resolutions may only refer to rules violations if referencing having multiple WA nations by a single player, or if as a compliment to moderator action so long as it is Rule 4 compliant.
[*](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. 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. 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.
[*](e) Your proposal must clearly state that the name of the nominee within the proposal, if it is a shortened version of the name or a different name entirely, is an alternate name to the intended nominee.
[*](f) Your proposal must not contain an advertisement for any nation or region, nor can it contain an acrostic. It containing such things could lead to its deletion from the floor.[/list]
[*][b]3. Your proposal must contain an operative clause stating what the proposal actually does, e.g. commends, condemns, liberates, or repeals.[/b]
This means:
[list][*](a) Operative clauses must be clear that they're targeting the nominee, rather than the actions cited in the pre-ambulatory clauses. An example operative clause is "Hereby Condemns Exampletonia".
[*](b) You must clearly state the name of the nominee in the operative clause, not a nickname, and misspelling the name is liable to get your proposal removed.
[*](c) The action that a resolution does (condemning, commending, liberating or repealing) does not have to be attributed to any body - however, if it is, it must be attributed to an appropriate authority - ie. the World Assembly or The Security Council (the former is preferred). A proposal cannot have "Sedgistan Hereby Condemns Unibot" as its operative clause.
[*](d) Liberation resolutions cannot call for the removal of founder-imposed passwords. Founder-imposed passwords are unaffected by Security Council liberations.[/list]
[*] [b]4. Your proposal must read as representing the opinion of the World Assembly, and as targeting a Nation or Region.[/b]
This means:
[list][*](a) The proposal must be read as coming from the WA, rather than being addressed to it. An appropriate way to begin a proposal is by saying "The World Assembly/Security Council,", whereas an inappropriate way to begin a proposal is by saying "To the World Assembly/Security Council,".
[*](b) You cannot reference the "real world" outside of NationStates. This means any terms or any information that is not a direct in-game reference, and that references something outside of NationStates, are considered illegal. Terms considered legal or illegal within a proposal include, but are not limited to:
[box][b][u]Legal Terms:[/u][/b]
NationStates or NationStates community (see [url=http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=3378497#p3378497]here[/url] and [url=http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=63954&p=2869456#p2869456]here[/url]), Multiverse (see [url=http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=2718600#p2718600]here[/url], Who (when referring to nations, see [url=http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=21482192#p21482192]here[/url]), Feeder or Sinker (as in "Feeder Region" or "Sinker Region", see [url=http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=27015130#p27015130]here[/url], Any term included within NationStates the game - eg. passwords, World Factbook Entries, founders, eject, 'black helicopters transporting nations between regions' (see [url=http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=56579&p=3033040#p3033040]here[/url], [url=http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=56579&p=2635579#p2635579]here[/url], [url=http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=56579&p=2408220#p2408220]here[/url], [url=http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=52675&p=2212924#p2212924]here[/url], and [url=http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=3946595#p3946595]here[/url]), Forums - legal unless it "plainly refers to the electronic entity" (see [url=http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=52675&p=2212924#p2212924]here[/url] and [url=http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=52242]here[/url]), Reference to paid aspects of the site is legal (see [url=http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=25331723#p25331723]here[/url]), but must be worded carefully. There is no ruling yet on specific terms such as "postmaster general" or "stamps", Cards - legal - but only if not used in a manner consistent with a real life card collection, using other terms maybe more viable in practice (see [url=https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=36286145#p36286145]here[/url]).
[b][u]Illegal Terms:[/u][/b]
Personal pronouns - illegal when referring to the nation (see [url=http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=3802851#p3802851]here[/url], [url=http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=52675&p=2615469#p2615469]here[/url], and [url=http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=68832&p=3159552#p3159552]here[/url]), Roleplayer or Gameplayer (see [url=http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=65048&p=2926982#p2926982]here[/url] and [url=http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=65048&p=3087394#p3087394]here[/url]), Thread (as in a forum topic - illegal - simply describe what is done within the thread (see [url=http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=52675&p=2594633#p2594633]here[/url]) nor can you link to threads either), Post (as in 'post' on the forums or an RMB see [url=http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=4173998#p4173998]here[/url])[/box]Using 'defining' clauses to include any of these terms is also illegal. Additionally, proper nouns explicitly referencing game mechanics illegal under Rule 4 are not allowed (see [url=http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=4173998#p4173998]here[/url]). Some terms normally considered Real World references can be worked into proposals, so long as it's clearly demonstrated what the terms mean within NationStates (see [url=http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=4160372#p4160372]here[/url] and [url=http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=80837&p=4173410#p4173410]here[/url]). However, claiming 'delusions' on account of an entire nation, or an individual within it, is not a valid way of inserting Real World references into a proposal (see [url=http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=5309728#p5309728]here[/url] and [url=http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=5322650#p5322650]here[/url]).
[*](c) You must refer to nations as nations, not as the player behind them. This includes the use of pronouns such as "he" or "she" as opposed to "they". The explanation below Rule 4 says that proposals should refer to NS actions rather than characteristics of players (bad spelling, rudeness). What is important is that a resolution cannot refer directly to the player, but can instead indirectly refer to it. Workarounds exist for describing personal attributes such as bad spelling (see [url=http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=40457&p=1663049#p1663049]here[/url]).
[*](d) You cannot refer to the game, or events or actions in it, as part of a game.
[*](e) Your proposal must be written from the perspective of the World Assembly.[/list]
[hr][/hr]
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".

[size=200][url=https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=3755848#p3755848]Rulings not included in the Ruleset & other Modly advice[/url][/size]

[size=200][b][u]Legal Term Rubric[/u][/b][/size]

[box]1. Is the term something that could be applied to real-world nations. If yes, then fine. If no, see #2.
2. Is the term something that could be applied to the NationStates world? If yes, see point 3, if no, then what on earth are you writing about?
3. Is the term referring to NationStates as a game, or to the people behind the nations? If yes, it's not acceptable. If no, it's fine.[/box]

[Bormiar]

I see the merit in keeping the old rules somewhat the same in that it helps people in citing them, there's so much that needs changing, and making better rules takes priority over tradition, especially if that tradition is based on the old rules which we agree to be flawed.

Today I will try my best to mimic the old rules as much as possible without changing the content, but I can only do so much. I'll also try to name or letter the rules so that old rulings still make sense.

• 1. You cannot commend or condemn members of the site staff (Moderators, Administrators, Issues Editors, Roleplay Mentors etc.) for actions taken as part of their role. However, in certain instances it is allowable to use content within a condemnation or commendation that happened during or before their tenure on site staff.

"In certain instances" suggests that most of the time if it didn't happen while they were site staff it's still not ok. The general assumption when reading the old rule follows this new one in clauses 1a-e, and that sentence is just confusing.

• (a) Issues Editors may be commended or condemned for Issues written, submitted and published prior to their appointments as Issues Editors but they may not be commended or condemned for any issues written, submitted and published after their appointment to Issues Editor.

People can resign from their post as IE - this suggests that actions after that are also off-limits, and people can co-author, which seems to not have been mentioned here. Also, it would be good to mention they can't be commended or condemned for issues edited.

(b) Role Play Mentors may be commended or condemned for actions committed during role playing, but they may not be commended or condemned for mentoring other role players.

committed taken. "Committed" usually refers to crimes, wrongdoings, or mistakes. Additional, though autocorrect is not your fault, "roleplay" has no space.

(c) General Assembly Secretaries may be commended or condemned for General Assembly resolutions passed before and after their appointment to the office, but they may not be commended or condemned for resolution legality rulings during their tenure.

They're not GA Secretaries, they're GA "Secretariat".

(e) Any addition to the site appearance aside from flags shall be considered a violation under this rule, meaning no nation may be commended or condemned for any action taken to change the appearance of NationStates on a technical level.

Dispatches also change the site appearance, as does WFEs, embassies, making a region, recruiting for a region, making an RMB post, making a forum post, making a WA resolution, raiding (if done successfully), defending (if done successfully), roleplaying, and general playing the game with a few small exceptions like telegramming. If you had just used the way that I phrased it this wouldn't have been a problem.

Additionally, outlawing one specific non-staff-related action suggests that all other contributions made by people who aren't members of the staff are fine. If Testlandia were to, for example, telegram me and ask me to code [blank] and I did it, an SC resolution cannot be written about that.

2. Proposals must contain a unique and relevant argument.
That means:

• (a) Don't plagiarize. If it can be proven that you've simply copy and pasted somebody else's Proposal and submitted it as your own, it'll be deleted, and you may be ejected from the WA as well. This rule applies to any resolution drafts or previously submitted proposals.

The second bit of that suggests that plagiarism only applies to plagiarizing proposals, as does putting it under rule 2, but obviously we don't want that. That's one of the reasons I opted to create rule 1. Same thing with your last sentence: "Does that mean I only can't plagiarize resolution drafts and previously-submitted proposals, or does that mean that only my resolution drafts and previously-submitted proposals can be flagged for plagiarism?".

(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, Liberations cannot duplicate any existing ones for that region. Nations/regions can be commended/condemned more than once - so long as the proposals are based on different sets of actions. A region can also accrue multiple Liberations, so long as they do not duplicate each other.

The second sentence has always been ambiguous to me, especially since Uni's attempt at liberating Belgium again wasn't flagged illegal. Can they not duplicate the content, or can you simply not have more than one liberation on a region? I see your interpretation of the rule (which I agree with) in the last sentence - I'd suggest only that sentence.

Also, be explicit that they can be condemned, for example, for raiding twice, so long as their specific actions are different.

(c) Don't use proposals to raise issues that should be dealt with elsewhere, such as rules violations and technical suggestions. Rules violations should be handled via a Getting Help Request or upon the Moderation Forum, and Technical suggestions should be handled upon the Technical Forum. Resolutions may only refer to rules violations if referencing having multiple WA nations by a single player, or if as a compliment to moderator action so long as it is Rule 4 compliant.

I'm not a fan of saying that it can complement moderator action, as I hate the idea of a condemnation of commendation based on a rules violation. I only think that repeals based on moderator action should be allowed.

Also, I don't like strictly saying that it can only be mentioned if it's WA multiing. That squashes creativity and goes against major precedent like Predator.

(e) Your proposal must clearly state that the name of the nominee within the proposal, if it is a shortened version of the name or a different name entirely, is an alternate name to the intended nominee.

I'd suggest you rephrase this. It sounds odd to me.

(f) Your proposal must not contain an advertisement for any nation or region, nor can it contain an acrostic. It containing such things could lead to its deletion from the floor.

Again, don't strictly say acrostics, as that suggests all other ways are fine and legal. Be more vague like "or include sneaky ways of inserting an advertisement into a proposal, such as through acrostics".

[*]3. Your proposal must contain an operative clause stating what the proposal actually does, e.g. commends, condemns, liberates, or repeals.

"e.g." means "for example". If you list all the types of resolutions, e.g. is inappropriate as it suggests there are other types (like tariffs).

(d) Liberation resolutions cannot call for the removal of founder-imposed passwords. Founder-imposed passwords are unaffected by Security Council liberations.

This is a technical thing, so shouldn't be addressed in the rules regarding proposal content. "Hereby removes the password of" is illegal anyways in your rules.

[*] 4. Your proposal must read as representing the opinion of the World Assembly, and as targeting a Nation or Region.

I'm not a fan of R4 as it's explained at all. First, it combines to fundamentally different things (Don't break the 4th wall and don't write from your own perspective). Second, it completely fails to clarify that the targeted regions and nations are those within the NationStates, so in reality it shouldn't be mandating 4a-c.

I'm fine with the rest of it except R4's combination of rules.

[Lord Dominator]

Bormiar's 4a and Kuriko's 1c both only need to say that legality rulings aren't a reason to C&C, including the bits about resolution writing seems prone to confusion.

[Bormiar]

Bormiar's 4a and Kuriko's 1c both only need to say that legality rulings aren't a reason to C&C, including the bits about resolution writing seems prone to confusion.

Fixed, thanks.

[Kuriko]

Bormiar's 4a and Kuriko's 1c both only need to say that legality rulings aren't a reason to C&C, including the bits about resolution writing seems prone to confusion.

Fixed on my end too. Bormiar, we don't need new rules. What we need is to clarify our current rule set and bring the hidden legality rulings by moderation into it. Which my set does.

[Marxist Germany]

Naming the rules can go a long way