SC Questions & Answers

[Candanadium]

Is there a way to mention a moderator/admin action in an SC resolution without breaking rule 4c? For example, could you use an euphemism like "divine intervention"?

[Sedgistan]

Possibly - but we'd need to know a) what mod/admin action you're referring to, and b) some draft wording for the clause(s) before we can give a definitive comment.

See: viewtopic.php?p=3755837#inappropriate

[Candanadium]

Possibly - but we'd need to know a) what mod/admin action you're referring to, and b) some draft wording for the clause(s) before we can give a definitive comment.

See: viewtopic.php?p=3755837#inappropriate

The login for the shared founder account of my region was taken by a group of raiders but was later given back to its original owner by an admin, how would I go about describing that? Would something alone the lines of "the Founder nation was taken out of Auralian control through divine intervention" work?

This isn't super relevant to my resolution though, and if there's no appropriate way to cite it without breaking a rule I can drop it.

[Unibot III]

Possibly - but we'd need to know a) what mod/admin action you're referring to, and b) some draft wording for the clause(s) before we can give a definitive comment.

See: viewtopic.php?p=3755837#inappropriate

The login for the shared founder account of my region was taken by a group of raiders but was later given back to its original owner by an admin, how would I go about describing that? Would something alone the lines of "the Founder nation was taken out of Auralian control through divine intervention" work?

This isn't super relevant to my resolution though, and if there's no appropriate way to cite it without breaking a rule I can drop it.

Access to the Founder Nation was seized by _____, and later restored by administrative fiat.

Or just, Access to the Founder Nation was seized by _____, albeit later restored to Auralia.

'Administrative' may still run afoul of R4, these things are always an elephant test. I prefer trying to find solutions to R4 that don't involve resorting to "divine" stuff because it's actually more confusing to non-initiated readers.

[Bears Armed]

The login for the shared founder account of my region was taken by a group of raiders but was later given back to its original owner by an admin, how would I go about describing that? Would something alone the lines of "the Founder nation was taken out of Auralian control through divine intervention" work?

This isn't super relevant to my resolution though, and if there's no appropriate way to cite it without breaking a rule I can drop it.

Access to the Founder Nation was seized by _____, and later restored by administrative fiat.

Or just, Access to the Founder Nation was seized by _____, albeit later restored to Auralia.

'Administrative' may still run afoul of R4, these things are always an elephant test. I prefer trying to find solutions to R4 that don't involve resorting to "divine" stuff because it's actually more confusing to non-initiated readers.

But the "albeit later" version makes it sound as though it was Auralia that restored it...

[Candanadium]

The login for the shared founder account of my region was taken by a group of raiders but was later given back to its original owner by an admin, how would I go about describing that? Would something alone the lines of "the Founder nation was taken out of Auralian control through divine intervention" work?

This isn't super relevant to my resolution though, and if there's no appropriate way to cite it without breaking a rule I can drop it.

Access to the Founder Nation was seized by _____, and later restored by administrative fiat.

Or just, Access to the Founder Nation was seized by _____, albeit later restored to Auralia.

'Administrative' may still run afoul of R4, these things are always an elephant test. I prefer trying to find solutions to R4 that don't involve resorting to "divine" stuff because it's actually more confusing to non-initiated readers.

In that case I think I'm better off leaving it out. Thanks for the help!

[Sedgistan]

Of Unibot's suggestions, the second is better ("administrative" in the first would be problemmatic).

[Unibot III]

Of Unibot's suggestions, the second is better ("administrative" in the first would be problemmatic).

I thought as much, but I encourage authors to push the boundaries.

"Poster" broke me.

[Awesomeland012345]

I have a few questions:
1) What are all the rules? I've been trying to finding them for so long, but can never manage to find them.
2) Can I search the SC and GA resolutions by title name?
3) If I want to submit a resolution, how do I put it onto a thread for editing?
4) If someone responds or quotes this post, will I get a notice? (please quote even if I don't get a notice, and telegram me is I don't get a notice)

Also, just give me some important information on the WA's GA and SC.

[Borovan entered the region as he]

I have a few questions:
1) What are all the rules? I've been trying to finding them for so long, but can never manage to find them.
2) Can I search the SC and GA resolutions by title name?
3) If I want to submit a resolution, how do I put it onto a thread for editing?
4) If someone responds or quotes this post, will I get a notice? (please quote even if I don't get a notice, and telegram me is I don't get a notice)

Also, just give me some important information on the WA's GA and SC.

1. Rules are here. viewtopic.php?f=24&t=8809
If you need help on how to make a illegal proposal legal, ask away.
2. Yes if you mean by if you remember the term you can search it with the search function in the SC thread here viewtopic.php?f=24&t=7503
However if you mean by alphabetical title order, likely no. Unless someone actually kept a record of such.
3. Just make a new topic for Security Council forum. Usually there will be responses later and you can edit the topic.
4. Not sure what you mean by this. If you ignore the forums entirely you won't get a notice. I guess you'll know there are responses by looking at your ego search. If it's green, there are new responses. If grey, no new responses.

There's a lot of important stuff on the GA and SC, which can maybe extend into a long guide. Some things: People will find that they the GA and SC rules work differently. Some people would have a preference over which of the rules are easier to understand. The GA can affect your NS stats, but it's up to you if it affects you rping your nation. The GA is like a mock UN. The SC commends and condemns are mostly cosmetic or rp but liberation s affect the game mechanics. It helps to look at other people's drafts and comment feedback if you're starting to create your own GA proposal but keep in mind that there is steep curve considering the rules, hundreds of past resolutions, knowledge required, and need to convince people. For SC, it's just knowing the facts of the a good topic in certain field whether it's a rp, gp, or other field. If you have a nominee in mind after knowing a lot or have an idea, you can interview people and put it in a proposal for a commend or condemnation. Likewise there are also past resolutions.

[Awesomeland012345]

I have a few questions:
1) What are all the rules? I've been trying to finding them for so long, but can never manage to find them.
2) Can I search the SC and GA resolutions by title name?
3) If I want to submit a resolution, how do I put it onto a thread for editing?
4) If someone responds or quotes this post, will I get a notice? (please quote even if I don't get a notice, and telegram me is I don't get a notice)

Also, just give me some important information on the WA's GA and SC.

1. Rules are here. viewtopic.php?f=24&t=8809
If you need help on how to make a illegal proposal legal, ask away.
2. Yes if you mean by if you remember the term you can search it with the search function in the SC thread here viewtopic.php?f=24&t=7503
However if you mean by alphabetical title order, likely no. Unless someone actually kept a record of such.
3. Just make a new topic for Security Council forum. Usually there will be responses later and you can edit the topic.
4. Not sure what you mean by this. If you ignore the forums entirely you won't get a notice. I guess you'll know there are responses by looking at your ego search. If it's green, there are new responses. If grey, no new responses.

There's a lot of important stuff on the GA and SC, which can maybe extend into a long guide. Some things: People will find that they the GA and SC rules work differently. Some people would have a preference over which of the rules are easier to understand. The GA can affect your NS stats, but it's up to you if it affects you rping your nation. The GA is like a mock UN. The SC commends and condemns are mostly cosmetic or rp but liberation s affect the game mechanics. It helps to look at other people's drafts and comment feedback if you're starting to create your own GA proposal but keep in mind that there is steep curve considering the rules, hundreds of past resolutions, knowledge required, and need to convince people. For SC, it's just knowing the facts of the a good topic in certain field whether it's a rp, gp, or other field. If you have a nominee in mind after knowing a lot or have an idea, you can interview people and put it in a proposal for a commend or condemnation. Likewise there are also past resolutions.

Ok, thanks. So the GA rules and SC rules are different? Can you give me the link to the GA rules?

[Awesomeland012345]

wait a sec... are these the GA rules? or are they for the entire WA? viewtopic.php?f=9&t=159348

[Lord Dominator]

wait a sec... are these the GA rules? or are they for the entire WA? viewtopic.php?f=9&t=159348

Those are the GA rules

[Awesomeland012345]

wait a sec... are these the GA rules? or are they for the entire WA? viewtopic.php?f=9&t=159348

Those are the GA rules

So... the GA follows the WA rules and the SC follows the WA rules and the SC rules?

[Lord Dominator]

Those are the GA rules

So... the GA follows the WA rules and the SC follows the WA rules and the SC rules?

There are no WA rules (outside of the game rules, but those are very different). GA follows GA rules and SC follows SC rules.

[Awesomeland012345]

So... the GA follows the WA rules and the SC follows the WA rules and the SC rules?

There are no WA rules (outside of the game rules, but those are very different). GA follows GA rules and SC follows SC rules.

OK... Now I'm confused. Are those rules in the link the rules for writing WA proposals? And the SC doesn't follow those rules, only the GA follows those rules?

[Lord Dominator]

There are no WA rules (outside of the game rules, but those are very different). GA follows GA rules and SC follows SC rules.

OK... Now I'm confused. Are those rules in the link the rules for writing WA proposals? And the SC doesn't follow those rules, only the GA follows those rules?

These are the GA rules, which only the GA follows. These are the SC rules, which only the SC follows.

[Awesomeland012345]

OK... Now I'm confused. Are those rules in the link the rules for writing WA proposals? And the SC doesn't follow those rules, only the GA follows those rules?

These are the GA rules, which only the GA follows. These are the SC rules, which only the SC follows.

Ok, thanks. That clears things up a lot.

[Lord Dominator]

These are the GA rules, which only the GA follows. These are the SC rules, which only the SC follows.

Ok, thanks. That clears things up a lot.

You would be welcome

[Alfkarl]

How do I join?
Please telegram
Alfkarl

[The Unified Missourtama States]

Rule 4 update - "feeder" and "sinker"

After discussion amongst the team, we've decided that the terms "feeder" and sinker" are now compliant with Rule 4, and as such can be used within Security Council proposals.

Rule 4 is intended to ensure that Security Council proposals make sense in terms of the NS world. While "feeder" and "sinker" would not make sense as real-world terms, they do within NationStates. This is due to the nature of the game, which sees nations created in a specific set of regions, restored in another set of regions, and ejected to a specific region - it is understandable that within the NationStates world, unique terms would exist to refer to these regions.

I have heard people say both that 'feeder region' is a legal and illegal term under scr4d. As the quoted ruling (from SC Rules discussion) was made over 4 years ago I want to clarify whether that 'feeder' and 'sinker' ruling is still in action or if it has been overturned. Thank you.

[Sedgistan]

Still legal.

[Dorab]

I am thinking about drafting up a commendtion and am not quite sure where to start. Should I make a thread saying I am going to commend X and want to include A, B, and C. Or should I have a first draft by the time I come to the forum?

[Morover]

I am thinking about drafting up a commendtion and am not quite sure where to start. Should I make a thread saying I am going to commend X and want to include A, B, and C. Or should I have a first draft by the time I come to the forum?

You should pretty much have some semblance of a draft ready when you post here. It's hard to give feedback (which is the biggest reason for drafting) when there's nothing to give feedback on.

[Dorab]

I am thinking about drafting up a commendtion and am not quite sure where to start. Should I make a thread saying I am going to commend X and want to include A, B, and C. Or should I have a first draft by the time I come to the forum?

You should pretty much have some semblance of a draft ready when you post here. It's hard to give feedback (which is the biggest reason for drafting) when there's nothing to give feedback on.

Is there a sort of guide or template to writing a commendtion? Also how important is it to follow the traditional WA style? Can I write it however I want within the rules and still have a chance of it passing?