SC Rules discussion

by **Unibot II** » Sun Mar 27, 2011 11:40 am

[quote="Sedgistan";p="5157413
But it does - it allowed the pre-ambulatory clauses to be written as if being argued by the author, rather than the WA.[/quote]

Ard has ruled as otherwise, her ruling was that "A Mean Old Man" at the beginning of the resolution wasn't apart of the resolution, because it went before the legitimate header, "The World Assembly," .. so the whole, "A Mean Old Man" line was inconsequential.

Even so, the question is whether pre-ambulatory clauses should be allowed to be read as if being argued by the nation that authored the proposal, rather than the WA.

Technically, R4 says nations not the WA. I'd prefer both, a nation's opinion can be adopted as the WA opinion... or it can be outright assumed to be otherwise from the start. BUT if one is doing the former, they have to make it explicitly clear that the WA is adopting their written opinion as its own.

Asking for people to use nation tags instead of 'my nation' wouldn't resolve this issue.

It would resolve the R4 concerns, it wouldn't resolve the problem of whom the resolution is 'from'.

by **Sedgistan** » Sun Mar 27, 2011 11:52 am

Unibot II wrote:Ard has ruled as otherwise, her ruling was that "A Mean Old Man" at the beginning of the resolution wasn't apart of the resolution, because it went before the legitimate header, "The World Assembly," .. so the whole, "A Mean Old Man" line was inconsequential.

I'm thinking of the Hiriaurtung Arororugul proposal, which only included 'The World Assembly' at the start of the operative clause - the pre-ambulatory ones started with something like 'Hiriaurtung Arororugul believes...'

Technically, R4 says nations not the WA. I'd prefer both, a nation's opinion can be adopted as the WA opinion... or it can be outright assumed to be otherwise from the start. BUT if one is doing the former, they have to make it explicitly clear that the WA is adopting their written opinion as its own.

I know it says nations, my thought was that we could (I haven't made up my mind which I prefer) remove Rule 4.c., and change Rule 3(?) so that it required the whole proposal to be written as if being argued by the WA.

Asking for people to use nation tags instead of 'my nation' wouldn't resolve this issue.

It would resolve the R4 concerns, it wouldn't resolve the problem of whom the resolution is 'from'.

Correct. If it's decided to continue to allow proposals to be written so that they can be read as if being argued by the authoring nation, then the 'my nation' bit would still need to be looked at.

by **Unibot II** » Sun Mar 27, 2011 11:58 am

Sedgistan wrote:It would resolve the R4 concerns, it wouldn't resolve the problem of whom the resolution is 'from'.

Nah, just rewrite R4 to what Ard always seemed to want but never put down on paper.

4. Your proposal must be able to be read as being submitted to represent the adoptable opinion of the Security Council, and as targeting a Nation or Region, and therefore must use nation-simulation language (“SC IC”).

The rest of the points to R4 follow suit with this, I think.

by **Crazy girl** » Fri May 13, 2011 8:59 am

Attention! Following this discussion, we have decided to make a small change to the SC rules:

4. Your proposal must be able to be read as representing the opinion of the Security Council, and as targeting a Nation or Region, and therefore must use nation-simulation language (“SC IC”).

For example, you proposal cannot:
(a) Refer directly to a player, rather than to the NationStates nation itself.
(b) Refer to the game, or events or actions in it, as a game or part of a game.
(c) Read as if you're speaking for you-the-player, the ambassador from your nation, or the nation itself (eg, "I think", "my nation feels", "Examplestan believes". Try "The World Assembly thinks" or "The Security Council believes", etc.)
(d) Reference the real world, in the sense of the place that is not the NationStates community.
(e) Contain reference to ideologies without explaining how they apply to NationStates in terms of actions, policies or attributes of nations/regions.

by **Mousebumples** » Fri May 13, 2011 10:09 am

Crazy girl wrote:4. Your proposal must be able to be read as representing the opinion of the Security Council, and as targeting a Nation or Region, and therefore must use nation-simulation language (“SC IC”).

For example, you proposal cannot:
(c) Read as if you're speaking for you-the-player, the ambassador from your nation, or the nation itself (eg, "I think", "my nation feels", "Examplestan believes". Try "The World Assembly thinks" or "The Security Council believes", etc.)

Point of clarification on C:
In my repeal resolution (SC#32), I had my usual "header" of "THE SECURITY COUNCIL:" followed by various verbage. One of which read: BELIEVES that any region which engages in such inappropriate actions with regards to World Assembly legislation, governance, and enforcement is unworthy of a commendation.

Would such a line now be illegal due to this change in R4? And, if so, can I ask why this is now considered to be a violation of R4?

Thanks!

EDIT: To elaborate further, I would think that the inclusion of items such as "The WA/SC thinks/believes/etc.:" would be okay as it's up to the delegates and voting members of this assembly to determine whether the WA/SC does believe such a thing by voting the proposal up or down. Of course, I suppose I could also see how a line like "The Security Council believes that Examplestan is a bad, bad nation," which could be more problematic.

by **Sedgistan** » Fri May 13, 2011 1:21 pm

If it says something like:

BELIEVES that any region which engages in such inappropriate actions with regards to World Assembly legislation, governance, and enforcement is unworthy of a commendation.

...then it's read as the Security Council believing that, even if you don't explicitly state that at the start of the clause. Security Council resolutions exist so that the WA can take an opinion on happenings within NationStates. The clause you cite would be legal under the rule change, as would:

The Security Council believes that Examplestan is a bad, bad nation

The reasons for the change are discussed earlier in the thread, but the fundamental principle behind it is that WA resolutions should be read as opinions of the WA, not of the nation that authors it, or an ambassador from that nation. It's part of Rule 4, as the rule is more than just about using nation-simulation language - the rule is there to ensure that SC resolutions can be read as documents passed by the NationStates World Assembly.

by **Mousebumples** » Fri May 13, 2011 9:17 pm

Sorry, Sedge. I missed the whole "Try this instead" part of CG's post, which is why I was so damn confused as to why SC/WA opinions were no longer allowed in a given proposal text.

I thought I understood R4 - and the issues in question here - and so when I read her post as -->

(c) Read as if you're speaking for you-the-player, the ambassador from your nation, or the nation itself (eg, "I think", "my nation feels", "Examplestan believes," "The World Assembly thinks" or "The Security Council believes", etc.)

... I was just so, SO confused why anyone thought such an expansion of R4 was a good idea. (Note: "Try" was removed from the above quote and does not represent any actual statement made by anyone in this thread.)

Of course, considering no such expansion of R4 happened, it looks like I'm the one who needs my head examined. :blush:

Thanks again for your fast response and for keeping the laughter under control while you were writing up your reply ....

by **Mahaj WA Seat** » Sat May 14, 2011 8:02 am

so to represent the SC's feelings as whole, or the WA nations as a whole, you couldn't say 'My nation feels' but could you say 'our nations feel...'? That would represent the feelings of the SC/WA as a whole, and looks legal.

by **Unibot II** » Sat May 14, 2011 9:12 am

This was sort of overlooked earlier, but I was asking if this would be legal:

The Security Council,

Recognizing that Unibot believes it is the absolute best nation in the world, even better than Sedgistan or Crazygirl,

Noting that Unibot is wrong,

[...]

by **Sedgistan** » Sat May 14, 2011 3:27 pm

Mahaj WA Seat wrote:so to represent the SC's feelings as whole, or the WA nations as a whole, you couldn't say 'My nation feels' but could you say 'our nations feel...'? That would represent the feelings of the SC/WA as a whole, and looks legal.

I would say probably not, as it's not immediately clear who the 'our nations' refers to. That'd be especially true if a proposal had a co-author - it could be read as 'our nations' being the author and co-author.

Unibot II wrote:This was sort of overlooked earlier, but I was asking if this would be legal:

The Security Council,

Recognizing that Unibot believes it is the absolute best nation in the world, even better than Sedgistan or Crazygirl,

Noting that Unibot is wrong,

[...]

Looks fine (legality wise and content wise

).

by **Unibot II** » Sat May 14, 2011 4:20 pm

Sedgistan wrote:
Unibot II wrote:This was sort of overlooked earlier, but I was asking if this would be legal:

Looks fine (legality wise and content wise ).

Okay sounds fine to me, legality and content wise. Except I think that clause would actually be illegal under RII, unless I said "Recognizing that Unibot believed it was the absolute best nation...".

I think this provides an easy workaround for players who wanted to express beliefs and opinions but cannot under R4 do so directly.

by **Sedgistan** » Sat May 14, 2011 4:26 pm

Well I did notice you'd said 'Unibot' rather than 'Unibot II', but there's precedent with Commend Ananke II that so long as you'd had an introductory clause saying "Recognising that Unibot II is more commonly referred to just as "Unibot", then it would be OK.

by **Unibot II** » Sat May 14, 2011 4:29 pm

Sedgistan wrote:Well I did notice you'd said 'Unibot' rather than 'Unibot II', but there's precedent with Commend Ananke II that so long as you'd had an introductory clause saying "Recognising that Unibot II is more commonly referred to just as "Unibot", then it would be OK.

But as I hadn't begun with that, it isn't an applicable workaround -- and I'm not critiquing your judgment, just teasing you.

*hands Sedgy and CG a bar of chocolate*

Don't DEAT me!

by **Omigodtheykilledkenny** » Sat May 14, 2011 6:50 pm

Sedgistan wrote:Well I did notice you'd said 'Unibot' rather than 'Unibot II', but there's precedent with Commend Ananke II that so long as you'd had an introductory clause saying "Recognising that Unibot II is more commonly referred to just as "Unibot", then it would be OK.

Why do you need even that? In RL, people can say "the United States" and it's universally understood to mean "of America."

by **Sedgistan** » Sat May 14, 2011 6:54 pm

To make clear that the proposal is referring to the nation. If I wrote a Commendation of you that called you "Kenny" throughout, it would seem more like it was referring to you, the player, or even some guy called Kenny.

by **Omigodtheykilledkenny** » Sat May 14, 2011 6:56 pm

Well that's because Kenny is my OOC name. My condemnation (I think) calls my nation "the Federal Republic" at one point, which is the shorthand form; why couldn't "Unibot" be shorthand for Unibot II?

by **Unibot II** » Sun May 15, 2011 10:10 am

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Well that's because Kenny is my OOC name. My condemnation (I think) calls my nation "the Federal Republic" at one point, which is the shorthand form; why couldn't "Unibot" be shorthand for Unibot II?

I have to admit, Kenny has a point in regards to my name vs. "Unibot", because I think it is clear if you're referring to "Ananke" or "Unibot" in a commendation for "Ananke II" or "Unibot II" you're referring to those nations. It would be more suspicious if you were referring to "Uni".

by **Sedgistan** » Sun May 15, 2011 10:21 am

Except that in those cases, Ananke is another nation, and Unibot (was) a separate nation too.

by **Unibot II** » Sun May 15, 2011 10:30 am

Sedgistan wrote:Except that in those cases, Ananke is another nation, and Unibot (was) a separate nation too.

Yes, but it is clear that those nations are related. If some other player had "Unibot II", the mods would delete the nation.

by **Omigodtheykilledkenny** » Sun May 15, 2011 10:34 am

Sedgistan wrote:Except that in those cases, Ananke is another nation, and Unibot (was) a separate nation too.

Good point. But there's no reason a resolution cannot simply say, "Recognizing that Ananke II (hereafter referred to as Ananke) has done many great things...", instead of a formal legal clause "defining" the nation's name.

by **Sedgistan** » Sun May 15, 2011 11:06 am

Oh, that's fine - what you just said would be legal too.

by **Unibot II** » Sun May 15, 2011 2:52 pm

Sedgistan wrote:Oh, that's fine - what you just said would be legal too.

Fair enough. I was never really concerned with it anyways.

by **Demphor** » Sun Jun 03, 2012 2:33 pm

Can you condemn not WA Members for Human Rights Abuses?

by **Sedgistan** » Sun Jun 03, 2012 2:38 pm

by **Sedgistan** » Tue Jul 17, 2012 11:41 pm

Bumping this thread up to say that the co-authorship line in a proposal is to list co-authors (up to a reasonable maximum of three) - nothing else. It is not a place to list supporters, assistants with campaigning, or to thank people. If you attempt any of the latter, your proposal will be deleted.

If you want to name-check someone for helping, you can use the proposal thread you post on the forums - or even just TG them your thanks.

SC Rules discussion

Question

Who is online