SC Rules discussion

[CoraSpia]

Surely this resolution, that was passed, is therefore illegal? It is entirely concerned with OOC matters as a justification for repealing a commendation.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=456105

In-game actions and real life maladies are obviously two different things.

Due to the nature of the accusations involved I can't go into detail regarding what happened but it was pretty well established in the thread discussing the resolution that it related entirely to OOC matters. Raiding and region building are in game actions. That stuff wasn't.

[Sedgistan]

A starting point in this discussion is that there's not going to be any movement from staff on "reference to players' health is not allowed in SC proposals". When unprecedented situations come up, mods can, will and have invoked new rulings, as was done here.

The question is whether this needs any further actions, with regards to the rules. I don't see this as needing a new distinct rule as rules within both "4th wall" and "Appropriate Topics" can cover it (there's a separate point that the proposal violated Rule 1b (not a relevant argument as it was solely about the leader) but that's not relevant to the "health in proposals point").

If people think necessary, the prohibition on referring to players' health can be spelled out in one of the "explanatory spoilers" in the thread, though that may invite rules lawyering from people who then want to see what other RL characteristics of a player (employment? gender? race?) they can then try to get into a proposal while claiming it's about the nation's "leader". So that would require writing something potentially quite lengthy about what RL characteristics should not be mentioned.

The other option is that this is one of those "UNIBOT acrostics" situations where a player known for doing strange things does something strange, perhaps for the sake of it, that no-one else will ever try again, and there's no need to clutter the rules thread up with it. That's what I'm leaning towards.

[Nova Vandalia]

The other option is that this is one of those "UNIBOT acrostics" situations where a player known for doing strange things does something strange, perhaps for the sake of it, that no-one else will ever try again, and there's no need to clutter the rules thread up with it. That's what I'm leaning towards.

Respectfully Sedge, if you think that this isn't going to happen again, I think you might be incorrect.

NS is a bare bones game. It's the larger community and the small niches of communities that have sprouted up around it that has been largely the driving force. In those communities we foster human connections and friendships. I know folks who have gotten together and moved in with each other after metting through NS, I know people who call each other in thier hard moments that have met through NS, and I think this year those virtual connections have grown all that more improtant. If you think that those deep connections we make aren't going to come up in in the SC, when we want to honor someone who we have deep connections with in a game and community they've decoted thier time in and too I'd say you are mistaken. This isn't a player know for doing strange things doing something strange, this is a human doing something human. I mean there are several significant instances of games outside of NS doing just this, finding a way to memorialize without trivializing the tough moments people in thier community face in a meaningful way. But I also recognize we're not them.

However look at what we're doing right now! The reason people are on a forum fighting over a rule on a game that a dude made to sell a book is because they care about the community and connections they made around , if that doesn't tell you at some point we're going to be back here doing the same thing again when someone in our community faces a tradgedy, then you need spread those Sedgy wings out a little further into some of the communities on NS that you might wander into often and see how deeply connected some of our folks are to one another.

I don't evny your position, its one I wouldn't want to be in so here is my suggestion; use the current rulings in place and the logic you offered to at least give a valid reason instead of blaming a 'player know for doing something strange doing something strange" because that's belittling as heck to the individual and to an act of kindness, then call it a day, don't codify something new or more specific because I perosnally hope to goodness it might be ruled differently in the future because who knows what the future has in store us.

[Unibot III]

A starting point in this discussion is that there's not going to be any movement from staff on "reference to players' health is not allowed in SC proposals". When unprecedented situations come up, mods can, will and have invoked new rulings, as was done here.

The question is whether this needs any further actions, with regards to the rules. I don't see this as needing a new distinct rule as rules within both "4th wall" and "Appropriate Topics" can cover it (there's a separate point that the proposal violated Rule 1b (not a relevant argument as it was solely about the leader) but that's not relevant to the "health in proposals point").

If people think necessary, the prohibition on referring to players' health can be spelled out in one of the "explanatory spoilers" in the thread, though that may invite rules lawyering from people who then want to see what other RL characteristics of a player (employment? gender? race?) they can then try to get into a proposal while claiming it's about the nation's "leader". So that would require writing something potentially quite lengthy about what RL characteristics should not be mentioned.

The other option is that this is one of those "UNIBOT acrostics" situations where a player known for doing strange things does something strange, perhaps for the sake of it, that no-one else will ever try again, and there's no need to clutter the rules thread up with it. That's what I'm leaning towards.

Note: The "UNIBOT acrostics" situation actually did prompt a rules change.

I think this perspective is shortsighted though, mental health especially has factored in NSGP time and time again. When real people play a game with limited dramatization, the line between "NS" and "RL" is always going to be vague.

There's a real possibility that NS and the WASC may be confronted with cases where a discussion regarding mental health or mortality may be necessary and relevant, especially in cases were leading players are known to have committed suicide, as has happened in the past.

For instance, if players wanted to commemorate a player who died and should have probably have been commended previously, I think I could imagine players trying to rush a commendation draft before the nation CTE'd. I wish I had had the opportunity to do that for a good friend of mine, but I didn't find out about his situation until his nation had CTE'd.

If you were to reference the fact that the nation was set to cease to exist, would it violate this new precedent by making a reference to a player's health? I can't see how such a reference wouldn't violate the precedent you're laying down. This is the problem with making knee jerk legal decisions without codification or without laying down the logic behind the decision.

I think it's pretty clear that cases like the current proposal are not covered under Rule 2. Rule 2 is about how something can be said and how it can't, you're talking about what can be referred to, and what cannot.

Rule 3 governs what can and cannot be referred to - and player's health is not covered by Rule 3 except in cases of privacy. In this case then, an addition to Rule 3 would be necessary.

However, I think that moderators should be very careful about reflexively adding "health" to Rule 3, especially as the game has over the past few years tried to become more aware and more sensitive to the mental and physical health challenges that players face in their daily lives.

In-game actions and real life maladies are obviously two different things.

Due to the nature of the accusations involved I can't go into detail regarding what happened but it was pretty well established in the thread discussing the resolution that it related entirely to OOC matters. Raiding and region building are in game actions. That stuff wasn't.

CoraSpia is right to reference "Repeal "Commend Solorni"" though - if the author had spelled out the reasons for the repeal clearly, it would have violated Rule 3 for site rules violations (defamation).

Wrapper is also wrong to say that Solorni's commendation was repealed for "in game" actions, NS Moderation holds that those actions were not "in game" - and hence why they're not applicable for moderation activity. It's illogical to say that their actions were "in game" enough to be mentioned in a SC resolution but not "in game" enough to be actionable by NS Moderation.

And besides, we will likely be confronted with situations where bad behaviour outside of NS requires action in the SC. For instance, one major NSer went to prison for pedophillia - it was an entirely RL event, not involving NS - but the community would have had to have repealed their commendation if they had been commended. It's unacceptable that their commendation would remain on the books in such a circumstance.

"Repeal "Commend Solorni"" is a working example that it is permissible to "write around" Rule 3 by making veiled references. It's a practice that authors have long pursued, and it's in keeping with the spirit of this Assembly.

This "health" ruling threatens to (unintentionally) upend how authors have handled other cases where RL problems impact NS. Life happens. And we've in the past had the flexibility as authors to discuss personal issues through veiled and imprecise language in the WA Security Council.

[Outer Sparta]

Surely this resolution, that was passed, is therefore illegal? It is entirely concerned with OOC matters as a justification for repealing a commendation.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=456105

It passed, therefore it was legal. Hard to tell from the writing that it's anything to do with RL or OOC matters. To me that's the major difference between it and Tin's attempt.

I couldn't tell either if there were RL references snuck in there. But Tinhampton's attempted commendation proposal that got discarded basically goes all over mentioning the nominee's illness, albeit disguised as one of their leader.

[Wrapper]

Due to the nature of the accusations involved I can't go into detail regarding what happened but it was pretty well established in the thread discussing the resolution that it related entirely to OOC matters. Raiding and region building are in game actions. That stuff wasn't.

Wrapper is also wrong to say that Solorni's commendation was repealed for "in game" actions

I'll retract my comment, I had confused two totally different situations. I mean, I can't remember what I had for breakfast, never mind something that happened two and a half years ago.

[Sedgistan]

The following has been edited into the top of the Security Council rules as an interim measure:

As of the 8th July 2021, the Security Council has a new category for proposals: Declarations. The preference of both players and Moderators is to take an organic approach to developing the rules on these - as such we have not made changes to the below rules yet to accommodate Declarations. All the existing rules do apply to Declarations too. However, there will be new sitautions that come up with them, and we will cover those when they arise. In the meantime, we strongly recommend seeking a Moderator "nod of approval" on legality prior to submitting your Declaration.

[Bears Armed]

In the meantime, we strongly recommend seeking a Moderator "nod of approval" on legality prior to submitting your Declaration.

By which method would the Mods prefer that "seeking" to occur? Should we make the request in this thread, start a new "[RULING REQUEST]" thread in this section of the forums, start such a thread in the 'Moderation' section of the forums, post in a special thread that one of the Mods is going to start soon specifically for this purpose, or what?

[Frisbeeteria]

Can't speak for the whole team, but ...

By which method would the Mods prefer that "seeking" to occur? Should we make the request in this thread,

No, that would be cumbersome and not at all relevant to this thread. New variant rules could of course be discussed when needed.

start a new "[RULING REQUEST]" thread in this section of the forums,

post in a special thread that one of the Mods is going to start soon specifically for this purpose, or what?

Maybe.

start such a thread in the 'Moderation' section of the forums,

Oh HELL no

How about simply putting [DEC Ruling] or some simpler variant ([DR}?) in the thread title of the proposal thread that each author creates for each proposal? Either the OP or the ruling mod could remove it.

[Sedgistan]

I'm making an effort to read everything posted here, daily. I know most the other SC mods are also making an effort to keep up to speed with things. As part of that, I'm posting in Declaration drafting threads already to give feedback on legality; the only ones I'm not bothering with are clearly joke proposals.

If you haven't got mod feedback on legality yet and want it, post something in the thread to that effect, or change your title as Fris suggests.

[Bears Armed]

*<snip>*

start such a thread in the 'Moderation' section of the forums,

Oh HELL no

Okay. I listed this possibility because, in pre-GenSec days, that was how we sometimes had to get Modly rulings on legality before submitting GA proposals.

How about simply putting [DEC Ruling] or some simpler variant ([DR}?) in the thread title of the proposal thread that each author creates for each proposal? Either the OP or the ruling mod could remove it.

Maybe [R.REQ] ?

I'm making an effort to read everything posted here, daily. I know most the other SC mods are also making an effort to keep up to speed with things. As part of that, I'm posting in Declaration drafting threads already to give feedback on legality; the only ones I'm not bothering with are clearly joke proposals.

If you haven't got mod feedback on legality yet and want it, post something in the thread to that effect, or change your title as Fris suggests.

Thank you. Noted.

[Morover]

Some suggestions:

1d Expanded Details should have some slight changes to accommodate for declarations. My proposal for this change is as follows:

Operative clauses in commendations, condemnations, and liberations must be clear that they're targeting the nominee, rather than the actions cited in the argument clauses. 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. In the case of declarations, the action or stance that the Security Council is taking must be clearly stated. [Note: This may be a good place to talk about the actual "legislation" part of declarations.]

The action of a resolution 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. A proposal cannot have "Sedgistan Hereby Condemns Jakker" as its operative clause.

---

I'd change 1e to accommodate for declarations; my suggestion is as follows:

A Proposal cannot attempt to do more than what it is able to do; Commendations/Condemnation can only Commend/Condemn the nominee, Liberations can only Liberate the targeted region, Declarations can only declare a non-legislative action, and Repeals can only repeal the targeted resolution. For example, your proposal cannot impose fines, sanctions or a boycott on a Condemned nation, but a Declaration may suggest such actions be taken, so long as they are not binding.

---

3a should be looked at with how it applies to Declarations.

---

3b Expanded Details needs to be rewritten to accommodate for Declarations. My suggestion is as follows:

Commendations and Condemnations exist to Commend/Condemn nations/regions, Liberations to Liberate a region, Repeals to repeal a resolution, and Declarations to express any other opinion, or take non-binding action. If you're looking to do something else with a proposal, you shouldn't be.

WIth regards to rules violations, these should be reported via the normal channels. If a rule violation has been handled by Moderators already, it may be possible to refer to this in a proposal - for example if a nation was operating multiple WA nations. Any attempt to cite rules violations in a proposal must have a Moderator ruling prior to submission; otherwise your proposal will be marked as illegal. Permitting reference to rules violations is purely at the Mod team's discretion.

---

4c should either be removed, as Declarations now fill their niche, or have a disclaimer at the bottom of "Expanded Details" to give a disclaimer, such as:

In nearly all circumstances, symbolic proposals can be replaced with a Declaration. It is highly recommended to express any opinions not directly about a target nominee with a Declaration, as opposed to a symbolic proposal.

---

In misc. other stuff:

You may have noted that I skipped 1b and 1c; I believe that these should not be applied to Declarations, and should instead be left up to the community to decide the standards to which the opinions of the Security Council need to be backed up by fact - I have no opposition to things like "The Security Council henceforth declares that emojispam on Regional Message Boards to be immoral and wrong," even though there is no actual argument or justification for the proposal. I also think that declarations would benefit far more greatly from being exempted from duplication and contradiction, and these should instead be left up to the standard of the international community - I think the duplication rule only exists in the SC now os that nominees aren't recognized for the same accomplishments over and over again, so I don't think the same standard should be applied to covering a topic multiple times.

I think that the ban on legislation should remain slightly loose - I think it's okay to instruct the Security Council, as a body, to do certain actions as bound by a declaration, so long as those actions don't affect how people play the game or submit a proposal. Something like "The Security Council henceforth does not allow any non-World Assembly nations from lodging in Security Council chambers without paying rent." should be allowed, imo. It feels like it should be something the proposal category should do.

[Bears Armed]

Has it been decided yet whether Declarations can be used for "GA-lite" proposals such as this one?

[Sedgistan]

Not yet. It could go under Rule 3b - "Don't use proposals to raise issues that should be dealt with elsewhere" - but at the moment we're still in a "wait and see what happens, and what players think" mode.

[Sedgistan]

We've just declared a proposal illegal that ended with the following:

Hereby declares:
1. War's definition as an armed conflict between individual nations and/or groups of nations;
2. The Security Council stands against war, and encourages nations to take up arms only to maintain peace, preventing the deaths of innocent civilians and mistreated soldiers;
3. Nations that have no regard for human rights and use various forms of oppression on prisoners of war, including torture, genocide, etc. are hereby condemned by the Security Council through their acts of violence.

This was judged to be a Rule 1e violation - trying to do more than a Declaration can do, specifically through this part: "Nations [...] are hereby condemned by the Security Council".

While use of the terms "commends" and "condemns" is allowed in Declarations, if it is close to being a valid operative clause for a Commendation/Condemnation, then it crosses over into a Rule 1e violation.

[WayNeacTia]

We've just declared a proposal illegal that ended with the following:

Hereby declares:
1. War's definition as an armed conflict between individual nations and/or groups of nations;
2. The Security Council stands against war, and encourages nations to take up arms only to maintain peace, preventing the deaths of innocent civilians and mistreated soldiers;
3. Nations that have no regard for human rights and use various forms of oppression on prisoners of war, including torture, genocide, etc. are hereby condemned by the Security Council through their acts of violence.

This was judged to be a Rule 1e violation - trying to do more than a Declaration can do, specifically through this part: "Nations [...] are hereby condemned by the Security Council".

While use of the terms "commends" and "condemns" is allowed in Declarations, if it is close to being a valid operative clause for a Commendation/Condemnation, then it crosses over into a Rule 1e violation.

Interesting indeed. If I am reading this correctly, that proposal would have been more likely to have been ruled legal if the word "declared" would have been used right before condemned? If so, I urge the author to try again.

[Sedgistan]

"Declared" wouldn't have made sense in that sentence, but an equivalent of "condemned" would have been okay - e.g. censured, sternly admonished.

[Refuge Isle]

Thoughts on adding something which is similar to the GA's Honest Mistake rule, where a declaration repeal cannot blatantly misrepresent the target?

[Mallorea and Riva]

Thoughts on adding something which is similar to the GA's Honest Mistake rule, where a declaration repeal cannot blatantly misrepresent the target?

How would that be different than repeals of commends/condemns/liberations, where the truth is policed by the players rather than the mods?

[Refuge Isle]

Thoughts on adding something which is similar to the GA's Honest Mistake rule, where a declaration repeal cannot blatantly misrepresent the target?

How would that be different than repeals of commends/condemns/liberations, where the truth is policed by the players rather than the mods?

It's rather unreasonable to expect that mods will know the accurate history behind players and regions, especially when there can be conflicting perspectives and takes on a given situation. C&Cs etc cannot really be objectively mod-policed because the volume of required information is too vast, deteriorated, or subjective. Declarations are a bit different. They are more finite, the scope of them is in the proposal, so the required body of information is lower. Their content is also rather different from the other categories and can feature definitions and pseudo legal text.

If a repeal argues that a declaration should be struck because of how unreasonable it is that the target imposes a mandate for regions to form a military, is this actionable if the target solely outlines the benefits of having one? That is to say, should it be part of the game process to let distortion happen to that degree, and be compelled by false objective facts? Might players intuitively believe that declarations feature a similar semblance of accuracy on these texts, given the GA's HM policy and that these declarations can be written in a similar way?

[WayNeacTia]

How would that be different than repeals of commends/condemns/liberations, where the truth is policed by the players rather than the mods?

It's rather unreasonable to expect that mods will know the accurate history behind players and regions, especially when there can be conflicting perspectives and takes on a given situation. C&Cs etc cannot really be objectively mod-policed because the volume of required information is too vast, deteriorated, or subjective. Declarations are a bit different. They are more finite, the scope of them is in the proposal, so the required body of information is lower. Their content is also rather different from the other categories and can feature definitions and pseudo legal text.

If a repeal argues that a declaration should be struck because of how unreasonable it is that the target imposes a mandate for regions to form a military, is this actionable if the target solely outlines the benefits of having one? That is to say, should it be part of the game process to let distortion happen to that degree, and be compelled by false objective facts? Might players intuitively believe that declarations feature a similar semblance of accuracy on these texts, given the GA's HM policy and that these declarations can be written in a similar way?

Declarations aren't law, they are a statement. Therefore it is up to the voter base, whom made said statement, to determine it's validity.

[Sedgistan]

Thoughts on adding something which is similar to the GA's Honest Mistake rule, where a declaration repeal cannot blatantly misrepresent the target?

Wholly against. The closest we'll get is Rule 1b - checking that the repeal contains a relevant argument addressing the contents of the resolution it's repealing. Beyond that, it's up to WA members to determine their interpretation.The ethos of SC moderation is to do as little as possible, because most decisions are best left to players, and because it keeps barriers to participation low.

[Sedgistan]

Now that Declarations have had a couple of months to bed in, we are looking to update the Security Council proposal rules to account for them. This is what we are currently considering; changes in blue (to rules 1bcde, 3ab, 4c):

1. Proposal Contents
   
   1. World Assembly legislation: Proposals must be written from the perspective of the World Assembly or Security Council, not that of your nation, region or another organisation.
      
      Note that this is "from" the perspective of the WA, not "addressed to" the WA. Most authors will start their proposal with "The Security Council" or "The World Assembly" - you are not required to, but it helps to ensure the rest of your proposal is written in line with this rule.
   2. Relevant argument: Proposals must contain an argument for the proposal, which must be relevant to what it is doing; for example if Commending a nation you should include reasons why that nation warrants a Commendation, and a Declaration must contain reasons for the opinion expressed. If your proposal is a Repeal it must address the contents of the resolution it is repealing.
      
      If your argument uses a different name to refer to the nominee in the argument (e.g. a Condemnation of "Sedgistan" refers to "Sedge") you need to clearly state that this is an alternate name for the nominee (e.g. "Noting that Sedgistan is more commonly referred to as Sedge").
      
      Repeals are essentially arguing that the WA has changed its opinion on a subject - and this can sometimes be due to reasons not discussed in the resolution being repealed. However, the repeal should still address the arguments made in the original resolution. A good example was Repeal "Commend Sedgistan" which mentioned new events (the Devonitians coup in The South Pacific) to argue that the original Commendation's citation of defending as a reason to Commend had been undermined by those non-defender actions.
   3. Duplication: Nations that are currently Commended or Condemned for a certain set of actions can't be Commended or Condemned again for that set of actions. Equally, Liberations cannot duplicate the reasons for any existing ones for that region. We are not currently applying the Duplication rule to Declarations.
      
      This still allows you to Condemn or Commend a different nation or region for the same or similar action or set of actions.
      
      Additionally, nations/regions can be Commended/Condemned more than once - so long as the proposals are based on different sets of actions. In general, if you've Condemned someone for X behaviour, and then want to Condemn the same nation/region for more X behaviour, you're going to have to explain what's different about it now that means that it warrants a further Condemnation.
      
      A region can 'stack up' multiple Liberations, so long as they do not duplicate each other in content.
   4. Operative clause: Proposals must contain an operative clause that states what the proposal is actually doing - e.g. Hereby Condemns Sedgistan. Declarations are an expression of opinion, often presented in the form of guidelines the SC would like nations/regions to follow. A Declaration must express an opinion of some sort.
      
      Operative clauses must be clear that they're targeting the nominee, rather than the actions cited in the argument clauses. 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.
      
      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. A proposal cannot have "Sedgistan Hereby Condemns Jakker" as its operative clause.
   5. No further actions: A Proposal cannot attempt to do more than what it is able to do; Commendations/Condemnation can only Commend/Condemn the nominee, Liberations can only Liberate the targeted region, Declarations can only express an opinion, and Repeals can only repeal the targeted resolution. For example, your proposal cannot impose fines, sanctions or a boycott on a Condemned nation.
      
      Declarations cannot do more than express an opinion - do not use them to legislate, and do not use them in lieu of Commendations/Condemnations - if your text could be read as the operative clause of a different proposal category (e.g. condemns Goobergunchia for its unsightly flag) then you are violating this rule.
2. 4th Wall
   
   1. NationStates game: Proposals cannot refer to the game, or events or actions in it, as part of a game.
      
      This is the hardest area of the rules to get right for newcomers. Note, the NationStates world is different to the real world, and we permit language used to describe the unique aspects of the NationStates world - not just the gameplay aspects, but also ones from roleplay and other communities.
      
      We often get asked if a certain term is legal within this rule - it is hard to give a definitive answer, as words can be used in so many different ways. For example "player" referring to the person playing the game is illegal, but saying a nation is a "major player" within a region is legal. The list below is a non-exhaustive guide to the most commonly raised queries:
      
      

      • NationStates or NationStates community - fine, it's considered synonymous with "the world" or "the world's community".
      • Multiverse - legal, same as NationStates.
      • Personal pronouns - illegal when referring to the nation; most commonly seen with "he" or "she". However, using the personal pronoun "who" to refer to a nation, while discouraged, is considered a grammatical error, not a rules violation.
      • Personal - illegal when referring to a nation or region, fine when referring to an RP individual within the NationStates world, or in other contexts such as "Sedgistan repressed its citizens personal freedoms".
      • Terms included within NationStates the game - eg. passwords, World Factbook Entries, founders, eject, Regional Message Board, 'black helicopters transporting nations between regions' - legal. However that does not apply to "OOC" pages or parts of pages, such as the News page, FAQs and Getting Help page.
      • Cards, and associated cards minigame related terms - legal, although the more commonly used and more "IC" term is "international artwork".
      • Store features, stamps, Postmaster General etc. - all references to commercial aspects of NationStates are forbidden.
      • Feeder (as in 'feeder region') or Sinker - legal.
      • Roleplayer, Gameplayer - illegal.
      • Forums - legal unless it "plainly refers to the electronic entity".
      • Thread (as in a forum topic) - illegal - simply describe what is done within the thread.
      • Post (as in 'post' on the forums or an RMB) - legal; it's another unique feature of NationStates that nations can post on RMBs etc.
      • "Tag" (and other variants - "tagging", "detagging" etc.) - legal when referring to the raider/defender practices.
      • April Fool's Day and its various events - not automatically illegal, but ask for a ruling before submitting.
   2. Real world: Proposals cannot reference the "real world" outside of NationStates. In particular, they must refer to nations as nations, not as the player behind them. This includes avoiding the use of personal pronouns such as "he" or "she"; instead use "they".
      
      Note that reference to solely real world ideologies without reference to NationStates is prohibited. Real world ideologies are ones such as Thatcherism, Fabian Socialism, or Peronism that refer to particular real world people or groups, as against ideologies that are not considered real world dependent, such as communism, capitalism, fascism. Nazism is not considered a RW ideology - it is considered synonymous with national socialism, and also has an established presence within the NS multiverse (e.g. in Issues).
      
      See the guide on specific terms in the Expanded details of the above rule for more.
3. Appropriate Topics
   
   1. Site staff: Proposals cannot Commend or Condemn members of the site staff (Moderators, Administrators, Issues Editors, Roleplay Mentors, General Assembly Secretariat etc.) for actions taken as part of their role, and Declarations cannot cover site staff policy or decisions.
      
      Staff may still be Commended or Condemned for non-staff actions. Note that there are some "niche" staff roles such as Northrop-Grumman's work on the Dark Theme that are still covered by this rule.
      
      Issues Editors - Any issue-related work carried out by Issues Editors while on the staff is covered by this rule, including issues authoring. You may still Commend or Condemn for issues added to the game before joining the team or after leaving the team.
      
      General Assembly Secretariat - Authoring GA resolutions is fine to mention in proposals, as their role doesn't impact on this.
   2. Beyond the SC's capacities: Don't use proposals to raise issues that should be dealt with elsewhere, such as rules violations and technical suggestions. In some circumstances rules violations may be legal to refer to in a proposal - you must always request a ruling prior to submission if you wish to do this.
      
      Commendations and Condemnations exist to Commend/Condemn nations/regions, Liberations to Liberate a region, Declarations exist to declare an opinion on affairs within the NationStates gameworld; Repeals to repeal a resolution. If you're looking to do something else with a proposal, you shouldn't be.
      
      WIth regards to rules violations, these should be reported via the normal channels. If a rule violation has been handled by Moderators already, it may be possible to refer to this in a proposal - for example if a nation was operating multiple WA nations. Any attempt to cite rules violations in a proposal must have a Moderator ruling prior to submission; otherwise your proposal will be marked as illegal. Permitting reference to rules violations is purely at the Mod team's discretion.
   3. Site rules: The Site Rules apply to any content submitted to the site - i.e. including proposals. In particular, note the Copyright section, which prohibits plagiarism.
      
      Plagiarism applies not just to copying an entire proposal, but also to lifting individual clauses from other proposals. Plagiarising the framework of another proposal is generally not a good idea either, and will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
4. Miscellaneous Rules
   
   1. Links: In-game links to nations, regions and UN/WA resolutions are allowed within proposals so long as they are formatted not to show the url. Links to Dispatches, RMB posts, the NationStates forum or offsite webpages are not permitted.
   2. Branding: Listing co-authors of a proposal is permitted; note these must be nations, and each listed co-author has the right to request a proposal be removed from the submission queue. Lists of supporters or similar are not permitted.
   3. Symbolic proposals: Symbolic proposals were previously permitted (within strict limits) as a way of expressing the Security Council's view on matters beyond Commendations/Condemnations/Liberations of nations/regions. They are no longer permitted following the introduction of Declarations, which allow for a more open expression of opinion. Therefore, if you want to Condemn Hippopotamuses but you're actually trying to Condemn the really quite large semi-aquatic mammal rather than the NationStates region -- you now cannot; use a Declaration instead.

[Sedgistan]

That was a request for feedback too Otherwise I'll assume the stunned silence should be taken as universal acclaim.

I'm intending to put these changes live within a week or so, if there's no points of contention.

[Sedgistan]

Implemented, with one small change - where the Expanded Details of Rule 3b referred to the "NationStates gameworld", it now reads "NationStates multiverse" to make clear that Declarations aren't just for gameplayers.

An additional change has been implemented as per this thread - the end of Rule 4a now reads "Links to other webpages, whether onsite or offsite, are not permitted." so we don't have to expand the list of prohibited links every time someone asks about a different NS page.