New category rules

[Unibot]

So maybe the answer (in addition to defining some rules, mind you,) is to include upon the badge a classification. GP or RP. So, in retrospect, we'll all know who got what and WHY. And when writing the respective proposals we'll see where meta-gaming is most problematic and where it's really quite negligible.

I think this would help solve a lot of our problems. The idea sounds vaguely familiar from somewhere. But I like it.

[Allech-Atreus]

Ah! Rather like Category and Strength/Area of Effect.

We might have Commend, then the region/nation, then a drop-down list of reasons. The same for Condemn.

Then, the mods would be able to eliminate C&Cs for not being written to the category.

[Kandarin]

I've got an idea that might help. Then again, it might not.

When we're all IC the rules can be hard to reconcile. OOCly, though, I think we can all understand eachother's viewpoint of the game itself. So maybe the answer (in addition to defining some rules, mind you,) is to include upon the badge a classification. GP or RP. So, in retrospect, we'll all know who got what and WHY. And when writing the respective proposals we'll see where meta-gaming is most problematic and where it's really quite negligible.

That's a good idea; it would make the wording and classification of C&Cs easy to understand.

One thing to note, though - and I am not sure if this would be a good thing or a bad thing - is that these tags would entail an overt, public, and indeed official recognition of what the various player communities that make up NS are. As this debate is ample evidence, there are as many interpretations of that divide as there are players making them. Most of the people in this thread are familiar with most of those aspects by now, but another synopsis can't hurt. There is Gameplay and RP, but as too many people to name have been quick to point out, the WA regular group is something else entirely even if it is related in some ways to both. There's also General, which has its own culture and isn't beholden to any of the aforementioned. Gameplay and RP are of course not monoliths either. The former contains invaders and defenders as well as a much larger body of politicians who generally avoid the war scene but still base their framework in many ways on its presence. The latter has a vast cultural difference between NS and II, not to mention the substantial population of RP groups who use different systems and are based on regional forums. I almost certainly missed somebody or seriously misjudged something in that synopsis. The point is that it's something that there isn't a lot of agreement on and perception is often shaped by one's culture of origin.

Still, such a recognition of what the categories are - if a consensus on what they are could be found - could potentially be a very good thing. It would give players an increased understanding of what's out there in NS that they can take part in. It'd serve to distribute information on how other NS-cultures operate, and when they collide (which they inevitably do) it'd mean less conflict. It could be a very bad thing if the categories didn't reflect a real consensus and ignored some groups or stuck them in a category with others that aren't really similar at all. For example, the pair of classifications you gave - GP and RP - don't really leave representation for the reality of the distinct WA group, at least not as understood by many of the members who have spoken up. Many RPers or GPers likely have distinctions they'd want to make too.

It's a good solution, but we need a model that works for everyone. This is as good a place as any to put one together.

[Unibot]

One thing to note, though - and I am not sure if this would be a good thing or a bad thing - is that these tags would entail an overt, public, and indeed official recognition of what the various player communities that make up NS are. As this debate is ample evidence, there are as many interpretations of that divide as there are players making them. Most of the people in this thread are familiar with most of those aspects by now, but another synopsis can't hurt. There is Gameplay and RP, but as too many people to name have been quick to point out, the WA regular group is something else entirely even if it is related in some ways to both. There's also General, which has its own culture and isn't beholden to any of the aforementioned. Gameplay and RP are of course not monoliths either. The former contains invaders and defenders as well as a much larger body of politicians who generally avoid the war scene but still base their framework in many ways on its presence. The latter has a vast cultural difference between NS and II, not to mention the substantial population of RP groups who use different systems and are based on regional forums. I almost certainly missed somebody or seriously misjudged something in that synopsis. The point is that it's something that there isn't a lot of agreement on and perception is often shaped by one's culture of origin.

Nothing is saying in this method of multitypes that you have to conform to one of the types every time you write a C&C. I think as far as seperation goes, this wouldn't make our problems worse.

Ah! Rather like Category and Strength/Area of Effect.

We might have Commend, then the region/nation, then a drop-down list of reasons. The same for Condemn.

Then, the mods would be able to eliminate C&Cs for not being written to the category.

Hey, that's not bad!

What would be some of the reasons from the gameplay world and WA regular world that someone would be C&C? I think if we made a list, we'd have some sort of way to deterimine that "worthiness" problem we ran into earlier.

Except C&C's for contributions to the gameplay world would still have to be assigned a different writing style than ones for WA regulars, I think.

[Quintessence of Dust]

One thing to note, though - and I am not sure if this would be a good thing or a bad thing - is that these tags would entail an overt, public, and indeed official recognition of what the various player communities that make up NS are.

Insofar as you are wary of this I do agree, somewhat. I think you might be nervous about being "Commended As A Gameplayer" because you see yourself as an RPer as well, or even see your gameplay as an extension of RP. But perhaps this just means the C&C would have to be for something: "for contributions to their region", "for destabilising a region", etc.

For example, the pair of classifications you gave - GP and RP - don't really leave representation for the reality of the distinct WA group, at least not as understood by many of the members who have spoken up.

I can't speak for the others, but in a way I doubt we'd care if "WA play" was not a recognised category for the commendations. For one thing, any player who passes a resolution has their contribution recognised in-game, even if it is later repealed. For another, we already do things like this. We vote every year for the best resolution (thus far it's been Diplomatic Immunity, Repeal "Max Barry Day", World Assembly Headquarters). Having one's resolution defeated or repealed is a sort of condemnation. Lori Jiffjeff was given awards by two organizations when she passed Child Pornography Prohibition (and to even things out the Norderian Ambassador called her a bitch). Safalra was always very proud of Female Genital Mutilation's voting percentage, to the extent of making a pretty graph (which had its other uses). UNOG membership could be considered another metric. And there's always simply offering to buy someone a drink in the Strangers' Bar.

To put it another way: SP's commendation of Jey is very nice. But anyone spending 2 minutes reading the Historic Resolutions archive will quickly discover all these contributions, as will anyone who ventures onto NSwiki. It's not that Jey doesn't deserve being commended: it's that in a way he already has been! And in ways that have an advantage over C&Cs: they don't go away once the player ceases to exist, as is the case with Powerhungry Chipmunks, Mikitivity, Ausserland, and many other great names in UN/WA history.

It's a good solution, but we need a model that works for everyone. This is as good a place as any to put one together.

Yes, but, I think we first need an indication of whether it is technically feasible (and if so, whether the game staff would consider something along these lines). Without that, we risk spending time on a distraction while illegal proposals inch closer to vote.

[Absolvability]

I think you might be nervous about being "Commended As A Gameplayer" because you see yourself as an RPer as well, or even see your gameplay as an extension of RP.

I say... if we were to categorize the C&Cs, then each player could recieve one (either a Condemn or a Commend,) in EACH category.

I am not sure if this would be a good thing or a bad thing - is that these tags would entail an overt, public, and indeed official recognition of what the various player communities that make up NS are.

I don't think that's a bad thing. Especially since people seem to have so much pride in the particulars of what they do.

It's a good solution, but we need a model that works for everyone. This is as good a place as any to put one together.

I think this would work for everyone. If you mean to say that somehow we must combine everything and blanket the rules... well, why? I don't see why we need to do that. In fact, I suspect several of the WAers don't want to. Which is why this is such a problem anyway.

[Quintessence of Dust]

Quite: we wouldn't care if the rules for Gameplay Commendations (for example) didn't mesh with the rules for real proposals.

[Absolvability]

Actually, I've been thinking about what Kandarin said. Maybe labeling people would create a little turbulance. Instead of GP & RP, maybe OOC & IC would be more... y'know, passive.

[Cobdenia]

Maybe not that terminology, but something akin to IC and OoC would be preferable in my eyes.

I freely admit the seperation is not my ideal, I think IC only would be better and bring the groups together and be somewhat less confusing, however, if this is the only compromise, I suppose I have to run with it. Can I ask, though, that in the rules that it state that IC is the prefferred format?

[Kandarin]

Actually, I've been thinking about what Kandarin said. Maybe labeling people would create a little turbulance. Instead of GP & RP, maybe OOC & IC would be more... y'know, passive.

There are a lot of different definitions of OOC and IC. There's a sharp distinction between pure nation and character RP. Gameplay has the whole duality thing and both sides will swear up and down that they're all IC or OOC, as the case may be. Given the sheer number of complaints about a possible wrong category in the resolution that's currently on the floor, you really, really don't want to take on the duality can of worms. There are other such distinctions that I've probably missed. If the WA group collectively votes that they don't want a C&C category for itself, that's fine - but we should recognize that other groups have distinctions that are important to them that should be reflected.

I think maybe we're going about this in the wrong way. We have one side saying that the C&C proposals need to follow the specific format set by the existing rules, and another saying that this falls out of the purview of the existing rules and that other formats can be specified. Maybe we need to consider why those rules were made and what problems they are supposed to prevent (although I'm pretty sure Ard is already doing this, so I may repeat stuff she's said a lot). Let's go back, look at some of the rules, and try it from that approach. The points may be listed a little out of the order they are in in the rule thread.

* Game Mechanics - In general, the proposal can't say that the WA does things it can't actually do. So, proposals that condemn a nation and mandate an embargo are right out. So are proposals that commend a region and command all WA nations to move there to combat the evil invaders threatening it.

The WA can't commend a player, nor can it commend a character, nor even a government. If "Commend Kandarin" goes through, I will not get a little Commendation pin in the mail that I can wear. My characters will not get one either. My government clearly won't get one, as evidenced by the fact that the commendation will still stand even if I RP them getting overthrown somehow. These are all things that the WA cannot do; the WA can only commend a nation or region. As this is the only thing the WA can do, it is the only thing that proposals should say they can do. Proposals should only say that the C&C will be given to a nation or a region.

* Format - Again taking it very generally, The proposal should clearly and honestly state the reasons why what it wants done should be done.

Clearly is evidenced by the insistence on proper spelling and language, and the ban on amendments. These things are still the case in C&Cs, and so should still apply. The proposal should give succinct, well-written reasons why the commendation or condemnation should take place.

Honestly is evidenced by the insistence on proper categories and the abolition of references to real-life figures and political ideologies. If a proposal uses the "Social Justice" category and then makes an argument for an action to improve free trade, it is dishonest. It is giving false and misleading reasons for its actions, or reasons that poorly represent the actual result.

I believe that it would be similar for a resolution to grant a commendation or condemnation to a nation and misrepresent the reasons why by attributing the actions for which the nation is being commended or condemned to something other than that which did them. If the actions of an IC character, IC government, or an OOC player are the actual reasons why the C&C is being awarded, they should be stated as such. The actions of the character, government or player should be stated as the actions responsible for the C&C. That doesn't mean it should be awarded to the character, government, or player. The WA can't do that; even if the reasons involve characters, governments, or players, the recipient should still be specified as a nation or region.

* House of Cards - The proposal shouldn't rest on reasoning that will stop being valid. The quintessential example is of course other WA resolutions. This means that there shouldn't be proposals condemning a nation for violating a bunch of WA resolutions. Those resolutions could all get repealed, and the condemnation would mean nothing.

If the reasoning was the actions of a character, government, or player, this applies less. Sure, a character could die, but the fame (or infamy) that she brought to her homeland will last. Governments are similar. If a player quits, the inconsistency will solve itself in 28 days. If an evil character repents, a good government turns into an Orwellian nightmare, or an obnoxious player grows up and starts making amends, those are good grounds for repeal - but the actions that they took that led to the C&C will still have happened and so the original reasoning for the C&C is not undone.

* Grossly Offensive/Bloody Stupid/Jokes/Honest Mistakes - These are extreme cases that will not apply to serious C&C writers, or in the last case, they won't mind the correction.

* Duplication/Contradiction - Here we get into technical territory that we haven't heard back from the coders on. Can a nation or region be commended more than once? Can it be commended for doing one thing, then condemned for doing a different thing? If the answer is no and these things are impossible, they should be forbidden to attempt.

* Branding - There's no clear reason why this should be limited more than it already is, but I can't see why you would want to do it for a C&C. The idea is to draw attention to the target of the proposal, not its author.

* Metagaming - The most controversial one. I've saved it for last because I think I've covered most of the points already. C&Cs should be able to apply to nations or regions, because that's their entire function. C&Cs should not attempt to force events outside of the WA, which includes granting a C&C to a player or character or whatnot. The fourth wall should be broken if the reasons for the proposal are beyond the fourth wall yet still connected to NS, but should not be broken if the reasons are within said wall or involve people who don't play the game. The alternatives to such a breaking are locking out large chunks of the userbase or giving false reasons for a proposal.

[Allech-Atreus]

*Snip*

You've made a very good analysis, actually, but I think you're a little mistaken on how certain rules are taken, or at least have been taken in the past.

* Game Mechanics - In general, the proposal can't say that the WA does things it can't actually do. So, proposals that condemn a nation and mandate an embargo are right out. So are proposals that commend a region and command all WA nations to move there to combat the evil invaders threatening it.

The WA can't commend a player, nor can it commend a character, nor even a government. If "Commend Kandarin" goes through, I will not get a little Commendation pin in the mail that I can wear. My characters will not get one either. My government clearly won't get one, as evidenced by the fact that the commendation will still stand even if I RP them getting overthrown somehow. These are all things that the WA cannot do; the WA can only commend a nation or region. As this is the only thing the WA can do, it is the only thing that proposals should say they can do. Proposals should only say that the C&C will be given to a nation or a region.

this is a very good point- RP characters can be changed, or retconned out of existence, and we shouldn't force nations to go through a repeal process in order to formulate their nation's story the way they want it.

* Format - Again taking it very generally, The proposal should clearly and honestly state the reasons why what it wants done should be done.

Clearly is evidenced by the insistence on proper spelling and language, and the ban on amendments. These things are still the case in C&Cs, and so should still apply. The proposal should give succinct, well-written reasons why the commendation or condemnation should take place.

Honestly is evidenced by the insistence on proper categories and the abolition of references to real-life figures and political ideologies. If a proposal uses the "Social Justice" category and then makes an argument for an action to improve free trade, it is dishonest. It is giving false and misleading reasons for its actions, or reasons that poorly represent the actual result.

I believe that it would be similar for a resolution to grant a commendation or condemnation to a nation and misrepresent the reasons why by attributing the actions for which the nation is being commended or condemned to something other than that which did them. If the actions of an IC character, IC government, or an OOC player are the actual reasons why the C&C is being awarded, they should be stated as such. The actions of the character, government or player should be stated as the actions responsible for the C&C. That doesn't mean it should be awarded to the character, government, or player. The WA can't do that; even if the reasons involve characters, governments, or players, the recipient should still be specified as a nation or region.

Yes.

* House of Cards - The proposal shouldn't rest on reasoning that will stop being valid. The quintessential example is of course other WA resolutions. This means that there shouldn't be proposals condemning a nation for violating a bunch of WA resolutions. Those resolutions could all get repealed, and the condemnation would mean nothing.

If the reasoning was the actions of a character, government, or player, this applies less. Sure, a character could die, but the fame (or infamy) that she brought to her homeland will last. Governments are similar. If a player quits, the inconsistency will solve itself in 28 days. If an evil character repents, a good government turns into an Orwellian nightmare, or an obnoxious player grows up and starts making amends, those are good grounds for repeal - but the actions that they took that led to the C&C will still have happened and so the original reasoning for the C&C is not undone.

Here's where the main problem is; House of Cards is not as simple as "no referencing things in the past;" that's always been allowed with a certain degree of restriction- legislation cannot build off of past legislation, but it can make use of committees and mention past legislation, but only in the sense of "REMEMBERING the mission of UN#etc.etc."

If a nation violates a WA resolution (and how we'll be able to say that in terms of the game mechanics), and that resolution is later repealed, isn't it true that the nation had, at one point, violated the resolution? Wasn't it worthy of condemnation then? It still broke the law, and was punished- just because the law was later repealed shouldn't change a thing. The condemnation isn't a house of cards, I think, because the repealed legislation remains in the game code (albeit crossed out) and can therefore be clearly referenced as a part of WA history.

The rest of these, with the exception of Metagaming, I agree with you entirely on.

* Metagaming - The most controversial one. I've saved it for last because I think I've covered most of the points already. C&Cs should be able to apply to nations or regions, because that's their entire function. C&Cs should not attempt to force events outside of the WA, which includes granting a C&C to a player or character or whatnot. The fourth wall should be broken if the reasons for the proposal are beyond the fourth wall yet still connected to NS, but should not be broken if the reasons are within said wall or involve people who don't play the game. The alternatives to such a breaking are locking out large chunks of the userbase or giving false reasons for a proposal.

This is the crux of the argument, the heart of the whole big C&C affair- "What role does the fourth wall play?" I don't really know how to answer that anymore; how can we reconcile mention of non-game activity (a coup in the government of region X, which happened on the off-site forums or something) with in game activity (Region Y is in direct violation of such and such/invaded Region X).

You know my feelings on IC/OOC, and I know better than to beat a dead horse... I really think we need to step back for a moment, breath, and let the moderators and admins look over this. It would be nice to have the opinion of the moderators, especially those involved with the ruleset and other things- unless they're sworn to silence by [violet] or something.

[Kandarin]

This is the crux of the argument, the heart of the whole big C&C affair- "What role does the fourth wall play?" I don't really know how to answer that anymore; how can we reconcile mention of non-game activity (a coup in the government of region X, which happened on the off-site forums or something) with in game activity (Region Y is in direct violation of such and such/invaded Region X).

I really should clarify - when I said the fourth wall needs to be broken in such and such a situation, I meant only the aforementioned referencing of actions of something besides a nation (character, player, etc.). If the character or player does something that merits a C&C, that action should be credited to them as the reason for the proposal. The proposal should make it clear that it is still being awarded to a nation or a region, not the character, player, etc.

EDIT: Actually, disregard that 'Metagaming' section entirely. I'm just repeating things that I said earlier in the analysis. Seems the wording was different enough to sound like it meant something different.

[Absolvability]

There are a lot of different definitions of OOC and IC.

Not really. Intelligent people just have a way of convoluting things that are really quite simple.
IC=In character. This will entail nation RP, Ambassador Rp, mail clerk RP, and any other sort of RP.
OOC= out of character. Presumably... gameplay.

Now there's no saying that a gameplayer can't occasionally RP. The point is that C&C's will be labeled either IC or OOC, not the person writing it (though they'll be temporarily restricted by the category they choose,) nor the person recieving it.

If you want to condemn a nation's Ambassador... there need not be a distinction between national RP and Ambassadorial RP... because, presumably, the Ambassador is representing the nation. It's really all quite the same, so long as we don't TRY to make it difficult on ourselves.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

For the record, the rules I would prefer are:

- No specific RP characters, although "the leaders of...", "the government officials of...", and "the diplomats of..." is acceptable.

- Any mentions of gameplay or regional/offsite activity be referenced in a style resembling RP: "The nation of X-topia's actions in diffusing a potential international crisis among other nations in the region is commendable." Although I'd really prefer that offsite activity not be an issue at all, and that nations can only be commended/condemned based on in-game actions or NS forums activity.

- Any mention of "the player behind" is nixed. Only Nations and Regions can be nominated for award. "Referencing "the government of..." or "the nation of..." is fine.

- Only the nation or region being nominated can be mentioned. Only reference "other nations," "other regions," "the nation's neighbors," "diplomatic actions," "contempt for the international community," etc. Likewise, the nominating nation cannot refer to itself, as a branding offense, and especially first-person accounts are forbidden: "He's always been great to me and has really showed me the ropes for my new job in the region, and for that he's awesome and that's why I'm nominating him!"

All of this might avoid having to designate separate "RP" and "GP" trophies, an idea which I abhor.

...although this whole exercise is rather confusing. Someone (Ardchoille?) needs to produce a working draft on the rules that we can all work off of and make specific suggestions to, instead of just endlessly theorizing on hypothetical laws.

[Absolvability]

No specific RP characters, although "the leaders of...", "the government officials of...", and "the diplomats of..." is acceptable.

Oooh, you're so damned helpful. Yea, that's pretty much what I mean.

Although I'd really prefer that offsite activity not be an issue at all, and that nations can only be commended/condemned based on in-game actions or NS forums activity.

I agree with that too. It'll just keep things simpler. And more readily available to those that might actually take the time to examine a proposal for credibility.

[Ardchoille]

It would be nice to have the opinion of the moderators, especially those involved with the ruleset and other things- unless they're sworn to silence by [violet] or something.

Nope, [violet] has not yet demanded the Unbreakable Vow in the Unspeakable Ritual. It's just that occasionally mods have to do things to keep the boss -- not the Boss, the other boss -- happy. As do the rest of the player base, those of us who need to eat and pay mortgages.

So, being involved with the ruleset an' all, my feeling on the IC/OOC question is this: the C&C should be cast in the terms used for what they're being C&Cd for. If a Generalite is being commended, the writer might discuss his refusal to flame under provocation, his use of language, his exposure of Puppet A as being Player B, his nifty way with trolls and his frequent references to his cat, if these have become a forum meme, being often used even by other players to lower tension.

WA players -- might try getting used to saying "GA players" -- should be C&Cd in terms of the actions of their delegation, who, under the leadership of Ambassador Splodge, are an ornament to the great nation of Farnarkle, which the World Assembly, sitting in the (name of council), hereby COMMENDS. But if a GA player's being C&Cd for his gameplay activities, the proposal should switch to gameplay terminology (as has been done in the ones currently nearing the vote).

I must emphasise, this mindset is based on the assumption that there will be two bodies within the WA, one of which has no rules for its proposals,and therefore we are trying to write them. If we don't end up with that, I'd revisit this thread and cherrypick the suggestions on how to keep the wall intact.

What I think most important, though, is to keep them simple. The less we define, the fewer rocks to trip over. The point of writing these rules is not to help the mods who will be sweeping the queue, but the player who's writing his first proposal. Then to help the delegates who decide whether to endorse it so it doesn't expire. Then, finally, to guide the mods who will delete it if it fails for technical reasons. [violet] has been emphasising that it’s the players’ decision. If the players decide a proposal is illegal -- or wrong, or nasty -- they shouldn’t endorse it. If they decide there isn't enough information to make a decision, no endorse (hmm, caps there?).

The current WA rules didn't just spring fully formed from Fris's and Hack's brows. They built up over time, with a basic outline being changed if it wasn't clear. So I think basics are what we should be going for.

Like: Why should you write a C&C? (explanation based on "so good or so bad the whole world should be told about it"; maybe examples of silly C&C -- a couple of regulars who should know better have already written those.

Then, what you should put in a proposal:

a destination. (explanation: a nation)

an clear and honest argument or reason (explanation, with "you have to give enough information to convince someone who doesn't know them" theme).

conclusion, telling the WA what you want it to do. (Commend or condemn)

Finally, what you shouldn't put in, with explanations:

No flames.

No untruths, but you can give a view of what they did that may not agree with theirs.

No joke proposals; you can put them in the forum for laughs, but DON'T SUBMIT THEM!

Anything more?

(I really like that "clear and honest" line. It covers so much in so little.)

As I said, I'm just thinking basics. Anything else you think is really, really basic? We can explain more later, this is the “directions: microwave for 3mins on High” version so we don’t get a tl/dr screed.

[Unibot]

Unibot wrote

I'd didn't write that, Kenny did.

[Yelda]

Unibot wrote

I'd didn't write that, Kenny did.

I was just about to mention that.

[Absolvability]

<_< sorry for the misquote. I never was any good at writing a bibliography -hemhem-

[Yelda]

For the record, the rules I would prefer are:

- No specific RP characters, although "the leaders of...", "the government officials of...", and "the diplomats of..." is acceptable.

- Any mentions of gameplay or regional/offsite activity be referenced in a style resembling RP: "The nation of X-topia's actions in diffusing a potential international crisis among other nations in the region is commendable." Although I'd really prefer that offsite activity not be an issue at all, and that nations can only be commended/condemned based on in-game actions or NS forums activity.

- Any mention of "the player behind" is nixed. Only Nations and Regions can be nominated for award. "Referencing "the government of..." or "the nation of..." is fine.

- Only the nation or region being nominated can be mentioned. Only reference "other nations," "other regions," "the nation's neighbors," "diplomatic actions," "contempt for the international community," etc. Likewise, the nominating nation cannot refer to itself, as a branding offense, and especially first-person accounts are forbidden: "He's always been great to me and has really showed me the ropes for my new job in the region, and for that he's awesome and that's why I'm nominating him!"

All of this might avoid having to designate separate "RP" and "GP" trophies, an idea which I abhor.

...although this whole exercise is rather confusing. Someone (Ardchoille?) needs to produce a working draft on the rules that we can all work off of and make specific suggestions to, instead of just endlessly theorizing on hypothetical laws.

I agree with all of this, even though it makes my two submitted C&Cs patently illegal. I especially agree with the suggestion that "someone (Ardchoille?) needs to produce a working draft on the rules". We need something semi-concrete that we can comment on/suggest revisions to.

I haven't offered a lot of suggestions because firstly, if the "bicameral WA" approach is adopted then I'm not going to care deeply what the rules for gameplay proposals are. Whatever the gameplay community is happy with (within reason) will be fine with me so long as I don't have to deal with it IC. Secondly, if the "bicameral WA" approach is rejected then it won't matter to me either because I won't be around to see it.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

nm

[Ardchoille]

Well, if it's me you're counting on to write rules, solid or hypothetical, it's not going to be for at least 24 hours. I should be writing now instead of NSing and once I meet my deadline I'm getting some sleep though the heavens fall. If you see me on the boards again tonight you can tell me ... no, I guess that'd be flaming. But I'd definitely deserve it. Goodnight.

[Naivetry]

There are a lot of different definitions of OOC and IC.

Not really. Intelligent people just have a way of convoluting things that are really quite simple.
IC=In character. This will entail nation RP, Ambassador Rp, mail clerk RP, and any other sort of RP.
OOC= out of character. Presumably... gameplay.

With respect... viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1911

- Any mentions of gameplay or regional/offsite activity be referenced in a style resembling RP: "The nation of X-topia's actions in diffusing a potential international crisis among other nations in the region is commendable." Although I'd really prefer that offsite activity not be an issue at all, and that nations can only be commended/condemned based on in-game actions or NS forums activity.

Ruling out offsite forum activity negates pretty much all political gameplay.

Would you be okay with, "X-topia's actions in diffusing a crisis among the nations within his region"? (As ZS pointed out, RL nations like England or France can be referred to with personal pronouns in good, though slightly old-fashioned, English style.)

- Only the nation or region being nominated can be mentioned. Only reference "other nations," "other regions," "the nation's neighbors," "diplomatic actions," "contempt for the international community," etc. Likewise, the nominating nation cannot refer to itself, as a branding offense, and especially first-person accounts are forbidden: "He's always been great to me and has really showed me the ropes for my new job in the region, and for that he's awesome and that's why I'm nominating him!"

Agreed on no first-person accounts, but the whole essence of military and political gameplay is in interaction with other nations and regions. If we can't say, "... commending Kandarin for diffusing international tension during Taijitu's invasion of The Rejected Realms," then we can't actually address any gameplay activities worth a commendation. If we can't use these to talk about specific Gameplay events, they're absolutely worthless from the political point of view.

[Kandarin]

- No specific RP characters, although "the leaders of...", "the government officials of...", and "the diplomats of..." is acceptable.

- Any mentions of gameplay or regional/offsite activity be referenced in a style resembling RP: "The nation of X-topia's actions in diffusing a potential international crisis among other nations in the region is commendable." Although I'd really prefer that offsite activity not be an issue at all, and that nations can only be commended/condemned based on in-game actions or NS forums activity.

- Any mention of "the player behind" is nixed. Only Nations and Regions can be nominated for award. "Referencing "the government of..." or "the nation of..." is fine.

- Only the nation or region being nominated can be mentioned. Only reference "other nations," "other regions," "the nation's neighbors," "diplomatic actions," "contempt for the international community," etc. Likewise, the nominating nation cannot refer to itself, as a branding offense, and especially first-person accounts are forbidden: "He's always been great to me and has really showed me the ropes for my new job in the region, and for that he's awesome and that's why I'm nominating him!"

So, being involved with the ruleset an' all, my feeling on the IC/OOC question is this: the C&C should be cast in the terms used for what they're being C&Cd for. If a Generalite is being commended, the writer might discuss his refusal to flame under provocation, his use of language, his exposure of Puppet A as being Player B, his nifty way with trolls and his frequent references to his cat, if these have become a forum meme, being often used even by other players to lower tension.

WA players -- might try getting used to saying "GA players" -- should be C&Cd in terms of the actions of their delegation, who, under the leadership of Ambassador Splodge, are an ornament to the great nation of Farnarkle, which the World Assembly, sitting in the (name of council), hereby COMMENDS. But if a GA player's being C&Cd for his gameplay activities, the proposal should switch to gameplay terminology (as has been done in the ones currently nearing the vote).

I think these two posts nicely sum up the alternative views here. The question is whether to go by the letter or the spirit of the law/ruleset. I don't think there's a reasonable argument to be made against the fact that the letter of the law, the existing practice for resolutions, compels a certain IC format and forbids mention of certain things. Kenny's got them summed up pretty well above, if other WAers' comments are anything to go by.

On the other hand, the spirit of the law, the reasoning behind the ruleset, compels that the reasons given for proposals should be as accurate as possible. For C&Cs applied to many kinds of nation or region, this is in conflict with the aforementioned IC letter of the law. The reasons for C&Cs applied to General posters, Gameplayers, and certain kinds of RPers could be reworded to fit the WA's specific, established IC format. However, this would mean that the description of the reasons meriting the C&C for these types of nations/regions would become much less accurate to the actual reasons. If we didn't have that restriction and allowed the reasons to be put in their original format, it'd look like what Ardchoille suggests above.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Well, just so you know, the "no offsite activity" and "no mentions of other nations" things aren't dealbreakers for me. But there are issues that would need to be discussed, for example: if Greatbiglakeistan is nominated "for working so well with members of the regional community, including Davia and Danistan and Barryville," what would be the rule if, say, Danistan and Barryville still hung around at the offsite forum, but they had retired their NS nations? There are a lot of offsite people I still interact with who don't actively play NS anymore. At some point, we have to reconcile matters so that the actual in-game side of things doesn't become completely irrelevant. Also, what about commending the Jujubee Region for "recently reviving interregional diplomacy, thanks to the intitative taken by A-istan, B-istan, C-istan, D-istan and E-istan"? In three months we could be looking at archived resolutions that name nations and regions that no longer exist. That was my main motivation for suggesting that only nominated nations could be specifically mentioned.