Feedback on the SC Guide

[Sedgistan]

EDIT: This has now been split from The Guide.

I'm unlocking this now, as I'd like to get feedback/comments on this guide. There is still a section to be written (on proposal format), which will be added when it's done.

Once it's all finished, the comments will be split off, and the thread pinned.

[Ballotonia]

Two comments on the Liberation section.

1. I'm not sure whether the focus on liberations for defender-purposes is appropriate in a mod-created Guide. Liberations may be used by invaders as well. While in the current game situation defenders will typically block those, that limitation is created by users, not by the game, its design, or by the mods describing which liberation proposals are to be deemed "appropriate".

2. On the password you write: "They do not affect founder-imposed passwords". My understanding from a post by [violet] is that the current implementation allows anyone to enter a Liberated region regardless of there being a password or not, and regardless of who imposed that password. Could you please doublecheck that passwords remember who imposed them?

Ballotonia

[Unibot]

1. I'm not sure whether the focus on liberations for defender-purposes is appropriate in a mod-created Guide. Liberations may be used by invaders as well. While in the current game situation defenders will typically block those, that limitation is created by users, not by the game, its design, or by the mods describing which liberation proposals are to be deemed "appropriate".

This was written by me, not a mod. I certainly am focusing on legitimate liberations, instead of nefarious ones. If someone want's to write their own nefarious one, they should be smart enough to adapt this guide for their own benefit... and they're probably going to need to pretend to have the intentions highlighted in this guide anyway. Moderators may have an obligation to stay neutral in the R/D conflict, but they also have an obligation to make sure the guides and stickies of the SC don't stray too far from the focus of the SC .."A chamber dedicated to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary." ... which raiding seems to deviate from quite a bit.

2. On the password you write: "They do not affect founder-imposed passwords". My understanding from a post by [violet] is that the current implementation allows anyone to enter a Liberated region regardless of there being a password or not, and regardless of who imposed that password. Could you please doublecheck that passwords remember who imposed them?

You are correct, hence the details in the illustrated algorithm. Nevertheless if you use "remove founder-imposed password" in your resolution, it would be probably be illegal because it would go beyond the legal limits of a liberation. It would probably be legal however if the "founder-imposed password" was something that was incidentally circumvented and not referred to in the official text, as it was in "Liberate Greece".

[Sedgistan]

1. I'm not sure whether the focus on liberations for defender-purposes is appropriate in a mod-created Guide. Liberations may be used by invaders as well. While in the current game situation defenders will typically block those, that limitation is created by users, not by the game, its design, or by the mods describing which liberation proposals are to be deemed "appropriate".

As Uni has pointed out, this is a player-written guide, and not to be considered modly advice on what is or isn't "appropriate". Uni would've posted it himself, but recommended that I did.

The fact is that Liberations were designed primarily to prevent region destruction - there's no denying that, and that is also how they've mainly been used so far. The guide can't possibly cover every use of proposals, as there are far too many. However, if you want me to put a section in on using Liberations to further invader aims, I can work on that.

2. On the password you write: "They do not affect founder-imposed passwords". My understanding from a post by [violet] is that the current implementation allows anyone to enter a Liberated region regardless of there being a password or not, and regardless of who imposed that password. Could you please doublecheck that passwords remember who imposed them?

I believe you're correct that Liberation resolutions do actually affect founder-imposed passwords. However, any attempt to do so would be illegal, as Uni has described. This may be something that has to be taken up with [violet], as it could cause problems in the future.

[Sedgistan]

I'm also going to reply to part of Todd McCloud's post from another thread here, since it addresses this guide:

We even have two people writing a guide as to how this should be run, which has just now been unlocked so the others may comment.

In my personal opinion, this body should require no guide. Rules should be outlined, of course, but as for one or two people explaining to the entire body what is "good" and what is "bad", that's not what should happen. That's never what this body was about. In my opinion, "guides", if they are to be introduced, should be loose and still have room for what the SC did best: allow people to pick the proposals apart, debate over them, and create a good proposal together, not just by following a rubric written by a few people.

Please be aware that the focus of the guide is not how the Security Council should be used (I've really got to change that subtitle), but on how to write a proposal. Yes, it does discuss possible reasons for commending/condemning/liberating, but that is done to encourage authors to thoroughly consider their reasons behind writing a resolution - it's not there to dictate a limited set of reasons which must be used to justify proposals. There are many newcomers to the Security Council who have no idea how to write a proposal, what format it should be in, and how to get it passed - this guide is to help them through the process, rather than having to repeat it in every thread (and in fact there's far too much advice to be able to put into each drafting thread).

If you have specific problems with the guide - parts of it which you think are too prescriptive, or sections which you feel aren't sufficiently neutral - then please point them out, and we can work collaboratively to improve them.

[Ballotonia]

As Uni has pointed out, this is a player-written guide, and not to be considered modly advice on what is or isn't "appropriate". Uni would've posted it himself, but recommended that I did.

If it is posted by a moderator, it has the authority of a moderator.

Ballotonia

[Unibot]

As Uni has pointed out, this is a player-written guide, and not to be considered modly advice on what is or isn't "appropriate". Uni would've posted it himself, but recommended that I did.

If it is posted by a moderator, it has the authority of a moderator.

Ballotonia

Mods are players too: Mods are players too: Moderators have political, religious, and social opinions, and they are welcome to express them on the forums. In most cases, mods will add a "Moderation Team" signature block when posting in their official capacity, and all mod posts in Moderation and Technical are considered official unless specified otherwise. Otherwise, Mods are free to roleplay, argue, or otherwise post in any forum just as any other player may.

If you'd really like me to submit it, I'd do it. But Sedge did the work with the editing, and we figured that way if I took another mad fit with a rule change I couldn't madly try to change or vandalize the guide (although subtle changes would probably be more effective).

[Todd McCloud]

Really the first post doesn't need to be tweaked too much, IMO: it simply explains what the body is, very brief (albeit incomplete) history, and some key points. I do believe the history should include the debates we've had (The SC in relation to the GA crowd, the Rule IV crowd, etc).

Commending and Condemning

Why we commend or condemn

Before writing a Commend or Condemn resolution, you have to decide why you're doing it. There are a couple of common arguments which are used to justify these resolutions:

• Those who act on the Security Council’s principles should be recognized for doing what the Security Council cannot. In the same way, those who act against the Security Council's principles should be recognized for disrupting the work of the body. These justifications are common for raiders and defenders, whose military actions relate to Liberation resolutions, and also to those directly involved in the Security Council.
• The nominee’s actions need to be immortalized for future generations to learn from.

The guide does not mention what the security council's principles are. I don't know if we can really conclusively determine just what those principles are, as this body means different things to different people. Part of the problem with that is this body has worked under very little definition and ruleset for a long time. We all saw what happened when Rule IV was passed, and how it was intended to be passed without any discussion. Mistakes such as that should not happen in this body again, or we will end up losing more players. So, I'd recommend not doing that.

I'd keep these principles vague. Something to the effect of 'The purpose of the Security Council is to officially recognize the outstanding or shocking achievements demonstrated by a single nation or a region and to provide liberations of region when deemed acceptable by the World Assembly Body.' That's about as vague as needs to be without being too vague, in my opinion. Then again, that's just my definition. I don't want to be responsible for defining this entire body, because I don't feel privileged to do so, but if it fits, alright. The whole first sentence of the first bulleted point just doesn't seem right. I'd personally just get rid of the two bulleted points altogether and replace it with a principle statement. No need to really go into details or examples. That's the point of a guide: to not tell people what others do, but to provide someone with the tools they need to do what they'd like to do. I'd rather not have this turn into a 'well, people do this, so you probably should to.'. It should be more of a 'here's your tools, maybe a little advice by some people who have written successful C&C's, now have at it'.

A couple of arguments you should be aware of are:

• If a condemnation nominee wants a condemnation, they should not be condemned.
• If a commendation nominee doesn't want a commendation, they should not be commended.

The first one, while still repeated occasionally, has fallen out of fashion. A strong counter-argument to it is this:

It is clear that condemnation, like punishment, is not intended to produce some desired response. We may take the analogy of a violent criminal. Should we not condemn his actions, and even put him in prison, on the off chance that he wants to go to jail anyway, likes the attention of a trial, and we are only boosting his ego and popularity? This is absurdity.

I wouldn't say that this has fallen out of favor. Not saying it hasn't, but I'd rather this be less about opinion and more about fact. I'd instead replace this with 'this has been controversial due to the desire to still nevertheless recognize a condemned nation for their deplorable actions' or something to that nature. The quote is good, because this outlines it pretty well.

But the potentially better route here is to not even mention the arguments. Don't go into the details - let them carve their own paths. This goes for point two as well. I mean, if you're going to include it, then alright. But I personally would rather see them presented like this:

A couple of arguments you should be aware of are:

• Should a nation nominated to be condemned be condemned if they want such a distinction?
• Should a nation nominated to be commended be commended if they do not want such a distinction?

And just left at that. I don't know if that's the best option, but I must say I like them presented in question form better, but that's just me. Still, that's something we can talk about.

The second argument is harder to refute - however, if the nominee is being commended to 'immortalize their actions for future generations to learn from', then it could be argued that the Commendation is for the benefit of the NationStates community, rather than the nominee. However, without their support, it will be extremely hard to pass a Commendation.

Minus the last sentence, this part is alright to me.

How to write a commendation or condemnation

This section is written for commendations to avoid constant repetition, but the process is designed to work for condemnations as well. To illustrate this guide, an example proposal is used - Commend Unibot (because there's no other way you're going to see that proposal ). For this proposal, the justification will be "Those who act on the Security Council’s principles should be recognized for doing what the Security Council cannot."

Just say no to using concurrent examples here. If you're going to use an example, don't use a real-life example'and especially don't use yourself. I'd just make this part read 'this section is merely here to present some of the potential pitfalls in writing C&C's to save time and to save on repetition' or something to that nature.

Once you've chosen to commend a nation or region, you should (as discussed above) decide on the fundamental reason (or in some occasions, reasons) for commending that nation. You should then come up with a list of the positive actions your nominee has done which can be used to justify that reason. Essentially, these will be the things about that nation/region which are 'good' or 'admirable'. You should aim to research as much as possible about your target - even if you're only commending them for a narrow range of ther actions, it helps to learn their complete history within NationStates. The best way of doing this is to ask the nominee themselves for information. Don't expect them to write the proposal for you, but presuming they want to be commended, they should be willing to provide you with information. The NS forums, regional offsite forums, friends of the target nation/region and NSWiki are all useful resources when researching a nation/region.

This was supposed to be a guide for a commendation or condemnation, but it has now suddenly become just a guide for commendations. But if there is stuff about condemnations, wouldn't it be better to include it here? Like, saying stuff like 'Once you have decided to commend or condemn a nation or region, you should determine reasons as to why such a case is merited. These reasons should justify the case for the nominee to be condemned or commended. Some research may be required to strengthen your case, which can be done a number of ways: interviewing the nominee or others who have had close interactions with the nominee, reviewing the affects or impact the nominee has caused in the game, observing the actions or comments made on off-site forums, work the nominee has done off-site, reviewing the history reported on NSwiki, etc. The point you are trying to make is to prove beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt that the nominee is deserved of a commendation or commendation.'

• Unibot has written several WA resolutions
• Unibot has written a guide to the Security Council
• Unibot helped to design the Security Council building
• Unibot is a defender

Again, using yourself as an example here is just bad news. I may be one to talk, but being humble about things will go a long way. If you're going to use an example, make it informal. "Nation A has written proposals ___." "Nation A has participated and orchestrated ___." Stuff like that.

Once you've compiled a list of what you like about your target, you need to sift through these reasons so that you only keep the strongest ones. There is a character limit on proposals, and massive walls of text are unpopular. You also don't want your commendation being hijacked by people who focus on relatively minor points in your proposal at the expense of ignoring the important contributions your nominee has made. If your commendee has done a wide range of activities, you should divide the reasons up into groups - for example put those related to your target's WA actions together, and put points relating to their Defender activities together.

Change 'commendation' to 'proposal'. Change 'comendee' to 'nominee'. Also remove the example at the end of the last sentence - we want to keep this brief, and your wall of text comment goes hand in hand with this document too, lol.

• WA - Unibot has written several WA resolutions & a guide to the Security Council
• Defending - Unibot is a defender
• Discarded point - Unibot helped to design the Security Council building

Again... keep these informal. I'd actually remove the examples altogether. Trimming this document down will get it more reads, since people are more compelled and motivated to read a small document than a large one. It's who we are - we're all just a bunch of lazy human beings at heart

Plus I'd rather not have an example. Let people forge their own. They have many good examples in what has already been passed already.

The next step is to explain why those reasons are actually admirable and significant. It may be obvious to you, but not everyone will agree with you. Defending is not automatically considered a 'good thing', much as invading isn't always considered a 'bad thing' - spell it out, rather than assuming that others will understand.

Considering the debate we had last night, I think it would be best to remove the talk of labels here. If we're trying to create a non-objectionable I'd keep the first two sentences, and then add another one saying 'Be certain your explanations would provide insight to the significance of what the nominee has done to someone who may not be particularly familiar with a certain aspect of the game, eg roleplaying, raiding and defending, etc.'

• Unibot has written several WA resolutions, including "A Ban on Forced Disappearances" which helped to protect citizens of WA nations against oppressive governments,
• Unibot has contributed significantly to a guide to the Security Council, which has led to an improvement in the quality of proposals submitted to the Security Council,
• Unibot's actions as a defender have helped prevent several regions from being invaded and passworded, thus saving the Security Council from having to Liberate them,

See above points.

Finally, this can be put in proposal format, and given an operative clause:

The World Assembly,
Recognising that Unibot has written several WA resolutions, including "A Ban on Forced Disappearances" which helped to protect citizens of WA nations against oppressive governments,
Noting that Unibot has contributed significantly to a guide to the Security Council, which has led to an improvement in the quality of proposals submitted to the Security Council,
Believing that these contributions have helped to improve the World Assembly, and that the World Assembly should recognise those who positively develop the organisation,
Observing Unibot's actions as a defender, which have helped prevent several regions from being invaded and passworded, thus saving the Security Council from having to Liberate them,
Asserting that The Security Council should recognise those who assist with its aim of spreading interregional peace and goodwilll,
Hereby Commends Unibot.

Again, you can do this informally and with a much better impact too. That's my opinion though. I'd have this section read something like 'Finally, add in the operative clause 'The World Assembly,' to the beginning of the proposal, and a closing remark at the end that defines what action the WA should take with this proposal (basically just a statement outlining that the WA 'hereby commends/condemns Nation A).'

All in all, not bad. I'll look at the other sections when I have time.

[Sedgistan]

Really the first post doesn't need to be tweaked too much, IMO: it simply explains what the body is, very brief (albeit incomplete) history, and some key points. I do believe the history should include the debates we've had (The SC in relation to the GA crowd, the Rule IV crowd, etc).

I'm very wary about trying to sum up the major arguments debates we've had, as I think it'd be hard to write them whilst remaining neutral. Additionally, I'm not sure they're that much use - would they really help someone write a better resolution? If someone can write a couple of sentences on the debates, I'll include them, but it's not something I feel is vital.

The guide does not mention what the security council's principles are. I don't know if we can really conclusively determine just what those principles are, as this body means different things to different people. Part of the problem with that is this body has worked under very little definition and ruleset for a long time. We all saw what happened when Rule IV was passed, and how it was intended to be passed without any discussion. Mistakes such as that should not happen in this body again, or we will end up losing more players. So, I'd recommend not doing that.

I'd keep these principles vague. Something to the effect of 'The purpose of the Security Council is to officially recognize the outstanding or shocking achievements demonstrated by a single nation or a region and to provide liberations of region when deemed acceptable by the World Assembly Body.' That's about as vague as needs to be without being too vague, in my opinion. Then again, that's just my definition. I don't want to be responsible for defining this entire body, because I don't feel privileged to do so, but if it fits, alright.

The principles of the Security Council are what those who participate in the body make them (either through writing resolutions, or by voting on them). I know there's a few vague descriptions on the forum/the game itself, but none of them really amount to much. Would it not be better to say something like what my first sentence above says (that the principles are made by those who participate in the SC)?

The whole first sentence of the first bulleted point just doesn't seem right. I'd personally just get rid of the two bulleted points altogether and replace it with a principle statement. No need to really go into details or examples. That's the point of a guide: to not tell people what others do, but to provide someone with the tools they need to do what they'd like to do. I'd rather not have this turn into a 'well, people do this, so you probably should to.'. It should be more of a 'here's your tools, maybe a little advice by some people who have written successful C&C's, now have at it'.

I'd like to include some example arguments, because I think it might otherwise be hard to understand what the guide is getting at when it says that authors should consider their reasons for commending/condemning before writing a proposal. I could re-phrase so that the first one was a bit more vague (The Security Council should recognise those whose actions align with the principles of the Security Council), and could add one about "recognising significant/unique achievement within NationStates".

I wouldn't say that this has fallen out of favor. Not saying it hasn't, but I'd rather this be less about opinion and more about fact. I'd instead replace this with 'this has been controversial due to the desire to still nevertheless recognize a condemned nation for their deplorable actions' or something to that nature. The quote is good, because this outlines it pretty well.

But the potentially better route here is to not even mention the arguments. Don't go into the details - let them carve their own paths. This goes for point two as well. I mean, if you're going to include it, then alright. But I personally would rather see them presented like this:

A couple of arguments you should be aware of are:

• Should a nation nominated to be condemned be condemned if they want such a distinction?
• Should a nation nominated to be commended be commended if they do not want such a distinction?

And just left at that. I don't know if that's the best option, but I must say I like them presented in question form better, but that's just me. Still, that's something we can talk about.

The second argument is harder to refute - however, if the nominee is being commended to 'immortalize their actions for future generations to learn from', then it could be argued that the Commendation is for the benefit of the NationStates community, rather than the nominee. However, without their support, it will be extremely hard to pass a Commendation.

Minus the last sentence, this part is alright to me.

I like your change, but I'd still like to include a suggestion that a proposal author consult the nation/region they're commending to gain their approval beforehand, as it's a solid piece of advice - if the nominee is against the proposal, it'll likely fall apart with an ugly argument.

Just say no to using concurrent examples here. If you're going to use an example, don't use a real-life example'and especially don't use yourself. I'd just make this part read 'this section is merely here to present some of the potential pitfalls in writing C&C's to save time and to save on repetition' or something to that nature.

I don't mind re-writing with a commendation of a non-existent nation (or Testladia/Bigtopia). I think an example is necessary to illustrate the points made.

This was supposed to be a guide for a commendation or condemnation, but it has now suddenly become just a guide for commendations. But if there is stuff about condemnations, wouldn't it be better to include it here? Like, saying stuff like 'Once you have decided to commend or condemn a nation or region, you should determine reasons as to why such a case is merited. These reasons should justify the case for the nominee to be condemned or commended. Some research may be required to strengthen your case, which can be done a number of ways: interviewing the nominee or others who have had close interactions with the nominee, reviewing the affects or impact the nominee has caused in the game, observing the actions or comments made on off-site forums, work the nominee has done off-site, reviewing the history reported on NSwiki, etc. The point you are trying to make is to prove beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt that the nominee is deserved of a commendation or commendation.'

Fair point, and I'll make that change.

Change 'commendation' to 'proposal'. Change 'comendee' to 'nominee'. Also remove the example at the end of the last sentence - we want to keep this brief, and your wall of text comment goes hand in hand with this document too, lol.

Agreed (though you should've seen the length of the guide before I edited it ).

The next step is to explain why those reasons are actually admirable and significant. It may be obvious to you, but not everyone will agree with you. Defending is not automatically considered a 'good thing', much as invading isn't always considered a 'bad thing' - spell it out, rather than assuming that others will understand.

Considering the debate we had last night, I think it would be best to remove the talk of labels here. If we're trying to create a non-objectionable I'd keep the first two sentences, and then add another one saying 'Be certain your explanations would provide insight to the significance of what the nominee has done to someone who may not be particularly familiar with a certain aspect of the game, eg roleplaying, raiding and defending, etc.'

Fine, will make those changes.

All in all, not bad. I'll look at the other sections when I have time.

Thanks - I'll be making the changes I've mentioned above soon, but they may not be instant.

[Unibot]

But the potentially better route here is to not even mention the arguments. Don't go into the details - let them carve their own paths. This goes for point two as well. I mean, if you're going to include it, then alright. But I personally would rather see them presented like this:

Okay, I never set out to write a guide that didn't include some of my opinions that I've developed over the last year, much of the advice I've been asked to share by newbies is regarding my opinion on this or not, or how to argue this or that. Hence why I included it. My question is how can I write and submit a guide without it being subjected to the Opinion police? Because I never intended this to be a 'neutral' don't-tell-them-anything Todd-esque guide. Much like the player-created guides of established roleplayers in II and whatnot, I want to put down how to best play the SC, 'in my opinion', because I get telegrams like these every month and it is the same old reply.

[Unibot]

This section is written for commendations to avoid constant repetition, but the process is designed to work for condemnations as well. To illustrate this guide, an example proposal is used - Commend Unibot (because there's no other way you're going to see that proposal ). For this proposal, the justification will be "Those who act on the Security Council’s principles should be recognized for doing what the Security Council cannot."

Just say no to using concurrent examples here. If you're going to use an example, don't use a real-life example'and especially don't use yourself. I'd just make this part read 'this section is merely here to present some of the potential pitfalls in writing C&C's to save time and to save on repetition' or something to that nature.

For god's sake man, it was a bloody joke.

Plus I'd rather not have an example. Let people forge their own. They have many good examples in what has already been passed already.

Just because something has passed doesn't mean it is good. In many cases, authors have strayed away from repealing shitty resolutions out of respect for the nominee, not respect for the resolution itself. Spelling out what makes a good resolution is much more efficient than just linking a newbie to a page of historical resolutions (which will increasingly get larger and more intimidating as the years go by)... if you've got a different definition of 'good' (which you seem to) write your own goddamn guide.

The next step is to explain why those reasons are actually admirable and significant. It may be obvious to you, but not everyone will agree with you. Defending is not automatically considered a 'good thing', much as invading isn't always considered a 'bad thing' - spell it out, rather than assuming that others will understand.

Considering the debate we had last night, I think it would be best to remove the talk of labels here. If we're trying to create a non-objectionable I'd keep the first two sentences, and then add another one saying 'Be certain your explanations would provide insight to the significance of what the nominee has done to someone who may not be particularly familiar with a certain aspect of the game, eg roleplaying, raiding and defending, etc.'

You're debate last night proved almost nothing other than the very statement you are criticizing.

[Todd McCloud]

I'm very wary about trying to sum up the major arguments debates we've had, as I think it'd be hard to write them whilst remaining neutral. Additionally, I'm not sure they're that much use - would they really help someone write a better resolution? If someone can write a couple of sentences on the debates, I'll include them, but it's not something I feel is vital.

Ha with the... debate comment. Fair points. The only thing I would like to accomplish through the history is two things: 1. We had to debate a lot to get things through, so people shouldn't feel discouraged when they come under criticism 2. What's good and proper now is subject to change, as demonstrated by the changes we've undergone. Either way, I can take that or leave it. Both of those points can be accomplished elsewhere too.

The principles of the Security Council are what those who participate in the body make them (either through writing resolutions, or by voting on them). I know there's a few vague descriptions on the forum/the game itself, but none of them really amount to much. Would it not be better to say something like what my first sentence above says (that the principles are made by those who participate in the SC)?

I wouldn't say just that, but maybe some kind of combination between what I said and you said. You bring up an essential point: what the SC is to me, may not be to you, etc. But I still think we need a very vague 'this is what's generally accepted' sort of thing to go with it. My definition there might not cut it.

I'd like to include some example arguments, because I think it might otherwise be hard to understand what the guide is getting at when it says that authors should consider their reasons for commending/condemning before writing a proposal. I could re-phrase so that the first one was a bit more vague (The Security Council should recognise those whose actions align with the principles of the Security Council), and could add one about "recognising significant/unique achievement within NationStates".

Fair enough. I just didn't want to have people hit a snag with those two arguments, which might actually be better if some examples were provided, and the opinions kept down, in my opinion. As I said the quote I thought was good, since it's something historic and concrete.

I like your change, but I'd still like to include a suggestion that a proposal author consult the nation/region they're commending to gain their approval beforehand, as it's a solid piece of advice - if the nominee is against the proposal, it'll likely fall apart with an ugly argument.

Yeah, that's a good point. It'd make sense to include something about that it could be a potential problem if one does not get the approval of commending someone, as we've had problems with that in the past.

I don't mind re-writing with a commendation of a non-existent nation (or Testladia/Bigtopia). I think an example is necessary to illustrate the points made.

That's fine - that probably is better than "Nation A", and could even be a little bit on the fun side, as Bigtopians do indeed say the darnedest things. The examples in of themselves are fine, I just think it would be best to give them more informal ring. Depending on how they are used, they can actually be kind of like 'breaks' in between steps, so long as the examples themselves aren't too long. That would sort of 'bite-size' the points and make it more readable.

[Sedgistan]

I have made all the changes to the C&C section suggested by Todd which I said I'd make, excluding changing the example proposal - I will still do that, but at some other time. I've re-phrased the section on liberations removing founder-imposed passwords to clear up the point Ballotonia raised. I've also added a section on liberations-to-invade.

Comments & feedback still appreciated.

[Ballotonia]

A liberation resolution, when passed, will remove any delegate imposed password on the target region, and prevent a password being imposed in the future by any delegate of that region. They can not be used to remove founder-imposed passwords, or the founder's ability to password a region in the future. However, Liberation resolutions can still be proposed for regions that do have founders.

I'll presume you double checked with Admin that this is in fact how the feature works, and hence that I must've misunderstood [violet]'s prior remark.

Ballotonia

[Mousebumples]

A liberation resolution, when passed, will remove any delegate imposed password on the target region, and prevent a password being imposed in the future by any delegate of that region. They can not be used to remove founder-imposed passwords, or the founder's ability to password a region in the future. However, Liberation resolutions can still be proposed for regions that do have founders.

I'll presume you double checked with Admin that this is in fact how the feature works, and hence that I must've misunderstood [violet]'s prior remark.

Not sure what part you're questioning, but that's in line with my understanding.

If it's the last sentence (that Liberations can be proposed for nations that have founders) ... I would believe that to be the case, with the following scenarios:
(1) The founder in inactive and is set to CTE shortly. No one has a way to get ahold of the founder, and even though delegate controls are off, a raiding group has seized the region. (Seems silly for raiders to do that pre-CTE, but I presume it's possible.)
(2) As above, but the delegate controls are ON, and there is a delegate-imposed password in place.
(3) Proactively, a previously raided region manages to refound (with a native as the new founder), and the proposal is passed proactively to prevent any future raids from being successful.

Liberations won't affect a founder-imposed password ... But that isn't to say they can't still be passed in the case of a founder-imposed password. They just won't change anything, password wise, and would really be a waste of a Liberation, in my mind.

I'm sure there are other workable scenarios as well, but that's just off the top of my head. (And if that's not the part you were questioning, my apologies for the presumption.)

[Ardchoille]

Very early in the SC's career, I asked Pyth on IRC whether it was technically possible for the SC to pass a Liberation for a region that had a founder-imposed password -- I'd been wondering if it was physically impossible to submit such a proposal, whether the system would be unable to recognise the final vote, or whether the Liberation would just fail to register in the system. He said then that the SC could pass it, but it wouldn't have any effect.

I took this to mean that a Liberation vote simply wouldn't remove the password if the password then in place had been imposed by a founder. Otherwise, any founders who took the trouble to defend their region by passwording it, with all the disadvantages that entails, would still be at the mercy of any group(s) of raiders who could muster enough SC votes. As some of my puppets are in small regions that the founder just wants to keep friendly, comfortable and free from disruption, I was somewhat interested in this point.

I don't have the chat records, so I can't check his exact words, and it's always possible I misunderstood, but he seemed pretty definite. If you could link to [violet]'s remarks, Ballotonia, it would be helpful.

[Sedgistan]

A liberation resolution, when passed, will remove any delegate imposed password on the target region, and prevent a password being imposed in the future by any delegate of that region. They can not be used to remove founder-imposed passwords, or the founder's ability to password a region in the future. However, Liberation resolutions can still be proposed for regions that do have founders.

I'll presume you double checked with Admin that this is in fact how the feature works, and hence that I must've misunderstood [violet]'s prior remark.

Ballotonia

"They can not be used to remove founder-imposed passwords" can be considered a mod ruling, regardless of how the mechanics work - ie, a Liberation resolution that attempts to remove a founder-imposed password would be illegal. This is covered already under Rule 3.iii - "You asked the WA to perform an extra action". Relevant previous ruling:

A password imposed by a Founder doesn't come under the ambit of this sort of proposal, regardless of how lacking in virtue the foundation was. It says, "delegate-imposed powers", not "all powers". (Applies even if the Founder is also the Delegate. It's assumed the password is imposed by the higher power.)

[Unibot]

Very early in the SC's career, I asked Pyth on IRC whether it was technically possible for the SC to pass a Liberation for a region that had a founder-imposed password -- I'd been wondering if it was physically impossible to submit such a proposal, whether the system would be unable to recognise the final vote, or whether the Liberation would just fail to register in the system. He said then that the SC could pass it, but it wouldn't have any effect.

I took this to mean that a Liberation vote simply wouldn't remove the password if the password then in place had been imposed by a founder. Otherwise, any founders who took the trouble to defend their region by passwording it, with all the disadvantages that entails, would still be at the mercy of any group(s) of raiders who could muster enough SC votes. As some of my puppets are in small regions that the founder just wants to keep friendly, comfortable and free from disruption, I was somewhat interested in this point.

I don't have the chat records, so I can't check his exact words, and it's always possible I misunderstood, but he seemed pretty definite. If you could link to [violet]'s remarks, Ballotonia, it would be helpful.

My understanding is from the "Liberate Greece" fiasco, the resolution passes, the original founder-set password gets disturbed (because there is no way to tell if the founder or the delegate set it) and from then on, the founder has the ability to set a legitimate password back up. I'd really hope the admins don't change this, it was extremely helpful in "Liberate Greece" (even if that mission turned out to be worthless for a different reason) because the founder died from inactivity but had left up a "temporary emergency" password . At the time of writing the resolution, even the natives thought the password had been set by the delegate , but in fact the founder had set it (and it was quickly cleared from the regional/national happenings).

If the founder is dead, his password should lack the same authority as a living founder.

[Ballotonia]

I don't have the chat records, so I can't check his exact words, and it's always possible I misunderstood, but he seemed pretty definite. If you could link to [violet]'s remarks, Ballotonia, it would be helpful.

Had to do a bit of searching, but it started with this post: viewtopic.php?p=1524005#p1524005

In particular two things jump out to me (underlines added to facilitate discussion) :

First, it's true only for RP regions who have not exercised the main opt-out tool we provide: Foundership. A Liberation resolution cannot override a Founder.

Second, an RP region is not affected at all by a Liberation proposal unless it passes as a resolution. At that point, other nations would be able to enter. (Although not do very much.) The proposal itself, though, even if it reaches the floor, does not change anything about Haven.

The first part I interpret as the Founder is still there, access to regional controls is still off, so the region is still safe from being invaded. That's the context of the post (specifically, an RP region is concerned about getting invaded and a bunch of issues were raised wrt the functioning of Liberation resolutions). I understand it can also be interpreted as that if the founder sets a password it would actually functionally limit entry of new nations, that's for me an open question.

The second part increases my concern. It mentions nations still being able to enter, but not being able to do much of anything. Sounds to me like [violet] is talking about invaders being stopped by a Founder. What I'm still uncertain about here is that the context is Haven, which has no Founder. Without password protection Haven would be subject to invasions, and could be taken over, so the "Although not very much" part doesn't strike me as applicable to that specific case.

Anyway, this is why I've asked to double check. I'm not certain of it, but I have reason to believe the current implementation of Liberation resolutions may also overrule Founder-imposed passwords.

Note there's also a difference between Liberations not having any effect on a region with a Founder, and it overriding only Delegate-imposed passwords. The first is a function of the status of the region, the second refers to whom set the password (which should then hence be remembered by the system).

Ballotonia

[Ballotonia]

"They can not be used to remove founder-imposed passwords" can be considered a mod ruling, regardless of how the mechanics work - ie, a Liberation resolution that attempts to remove a founder-imposed password would be illegal. This is covered already under Rule 3.iii - "You asked the WA to perform an extra action".

In order for game mods to enforce this, they will have to be able to tell without any doubt which nation set the password on a region. So perhaps this is visible in the mod center, I wouldn't know.

Ballotonia

[Unibot]

"They can not be used to remove founder-imposed passwords" can be considered a mod ruling, regardless of how the mechanics work - ie, a Liberation resolution that attempts to remove a founder-imposed password would be illegal. This is covered already under Rule 3.iii - "You asked the WA to perform an extra action".

In order for game mods to enforce this, they will have to be able to tell without any doubt which nation set the password on a region. So perhaps this is visible in the mod center, I wouldn't know.

Ballotonia

No. You just don't say the line at all.

"Hereby Liberates X"

[Sedgistan]

No. You just don't say the line at all.

"Hereby Liberates X"

^That. If in doubt about whether the password is founder or delegate imposed, just use that, and the game mechanics will tell you (if it passes).

If there's no further feedback, I'll re-write the example proposal and pin this.